Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Father Anthony

03-09-2004, 05:37 AM

Forgive me for the formatting errors that will inevitably appear below, since I respond by email.

At 02:46 PM 9/2/2004, "matt" wrote:

>Regarding Mr. Henderson's post 17: I think it is too simplistic to think >that there is no difference in the way the Orthodox should approach the >communing of Copts and Protestants. It simply ignores history. Are they >not ancient in their origins and the producers of many saints?

Ancient in their origins, indeed...as are the other heretical former Orthodox: Arians, Nestorians, Roman Catholics, and others. But "...the producers of many saints?" No. Not as far as the Church is concerned. In fact, some of those whom they consider "saints" are condemned by the Council of Chalcedon.

>I have a feeling that the black and white approach advocated by some is >simply ahistorical.

Then you have not read the Canons, especially those regarding the reception of heretics back into the Church.

>When has the Church practiced this with Copts or Roman Catholics (esp of >the Eastern rite)?

I'm not sure what this question means, but clearly the Church has provided for the reception into the Church for persons from these heretical bodies.

>It certainly is an issue to be addressed, but to fall back on the argument >that one is "in or out" misses too much in its narrowing approach to the >Church, in my opinion. Furthermore, my point is even made for me in part >by Mr. Henderson's own example of reception into the Church via >chrismation and not (re)baptism.

Chrismation, of course, does *not* presuppose that the previous "baptism" of the one received by Chrismation is "valid" or Grace-bestowing in the way that the Mystery of Baptism is in the Church: it rather provides the Grace that was lacking in the previous "baptismal" rite received by the individual outside of the Church, and joins that person to the Church.

>If our baptism unites us to Christ fully and is recognized as such, how is >it that we are not united at least in part to the rest of his body, the Church?

If by the above the writer means that "...our baptism..." is Baptism in the Orthodox Church, then it does what he mentions. If the "...our baptism..." to which he refers is any other rite performed outside of the Orthodox Church, then his premise ("...unites us to Christ fully and is recognized as such...") is simply wrong. The fact that there are those in the Orthodox Church who do not believe and practice as the Church does only points out their disobedience or ignorance...it does not change the belief and practice of the Church demonstrated through the centuries.

> I would argue that if Mr. Henderson were to be consistent in his views, > maybe he should have been (re)baptized, as is the practice of some > Orthodox communities.

That would not, of course be "(re)baptism" but Baptism. The "re" assumes that the previous "baptism" was real, which is not what the Orthodox Church accepts. Reception by Chrismation is a full and complete reception into the Church for the reason I indicated above.

>Does the Church own the sacraments, the mysteries, and dispense grace >accordingly?

As a matter of fact, yes, in a very real sense. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Mysteries are hers, and she dispenses them. Thus one can be excommunicated - denied the Mysteries and the Grace thereof - as well as returned to Communion. Certain sins even exclude burial from the Church.

>And can an (ecumenical) council be understood to have either missed a >point or raised more questions than it solved? I would say yes. This does >NOT mean that Chalcedon is in error theologically, but rather that it may >not have solved the problem.

Of course it solved the problem. The fact that there are those who refused obedience to the Council (and continue to do so) does not make the Council to be in error, or incomplete.

>I would point to its use of apophatic terms as an opening for even more >dialogue. Also, the same truth can in fact be stated in different ways. I >am NOT a "all-roads-lead-up-the-same-mountain" Christian. Please understand me.

The statements of the Council are quite clear, and I am not aware of even ecumenically-minded persons who claim otherwise: the claims made about the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites are usually that a) they and the Chalcedonians misunderstood each other (which must mean that the Holy Spirit did not understand either, or that He does not guide the Church in Council: both blasphemous, I think) or b) perhaps the nonChalcedonians *did* have it wrong, but not anymore, so now it's O.K. - which is nonsense because one who is *not* Orthodox and a member of the Church does not *become* Orthodox and a member of the Church simply by coming to Orthodox belief...that's just the first step.

> I am only saying that it is not a dogma of Orthodoxy to believe that a > council can solve all of our theological problems and restore unity, even > if what it said was correct.

The Councils which dealt with doctrinal matters *did* solve the problems they addressed. They did *not* solve problems which they did not address. That's kind of elementary, ISTM.

>As for revisionist theologians, let's be careful. Exactly who are they? >What books?

Those which question the history and definitions of the Church. There are more than any of us could list. Yes. Let's be careful and use discernment.

I know several nonChalcedonian clergy (there are three nonChalcedonian parishes within a couple of miles of my home, in fact). They *all* consider us (Orthodox) to be heretical. They love us, as we should love them, but they don't pretend to have the same faith.

Which reminds me...I was at a Christmas party given by those parishes several years ago, to which I and our parish were invited. I brought up the silly expression, "Pre-Chalcedonian" that is often used by those Orthodox who apparently want to minimize the distinction between them and the Orthodox, and which I have always found disingenuous.

I asked what they thought of the term. Unanimously they indicated that it is an insult to them: they are not "Pre-Chalcedonian" - all of the "Pre-Chalcedonians" have been dead for centuries. They told me that they are *Non*-Chalcedonians, even more correctly, *Anti*-Chalcedonians, because they *reject* the Council and its conclusions.

So don't talk to me about having the same faith as the nonChalcedonians: we don't. If they ever come to an Orthodox confession of faith, it will be wonderful for many reasons...not the least of which is that their piety and traditionalism puts many (most?) Orthodox to shame. At an ecumenical gathering at St. Vladimir's seminary a number years ago, which happened to take place during the Apostles' Fast, the nonChalcedonian hierarchs attending refused the non-fasting food served, and were astonished at the cavalier attitude toward fasting shown by the Orthodox hosts!

Fr. Anthony

James H.

03-09-2004, 09:29 AM

Father Anthony,

Given your view on the Limits of the Church, I am really curious what your response is to Matt's comment: "It is not as if the RCC suddenly lost its sacramental grace (not to be confused with other grace, if that is a category you are comfortable with) one day in 1054 and that the baby baptized in Gaul the next morning was somehow not really baptized and united to Christ."

I would have to assume that you would not agree with this statement. If that's so, it would be interesting to read your reasoning.

In Christ,

James

James H.

03-09-2004, 09:34 AM

What makes an Ecumenical council "ecumenical" and not just "local"? (I ask this because I am under the understanding that not all Bishops were even represented at all seven ecumenical councils (e.g. the Roman Bishop not represented at the first EC. correct?). Also, is there any difference in authority between local and ecumencial councils? Does the Holy Spirit guide them equally? Haven't there been local councils (before the schism) that we have deemed heresy? I'm getting ahead of myself. I would be interested in people's responses to these questions.

Thanks!

James

James H.

03-09-2004, 09:49 AM

I'm sorry, I have one more question. What is wrong with the following Coptic response?

"The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the five so-called monophysite churches, characterised by their acceptance of the first three ecumenical councils and rejection of the Council of Chalcedon (451). In contrast to Chalcedon's doctrine that Christ is one person existing in two natures the Coptic Church affirms that Christ's humanity cannot be separated from his divinity. After the incarnation, the thoughts and actions of Jesus were those of a single unitary being. This doctrine has sometimes been described as monophysitism because it ascribes to Christ one nature."

Is it not just different words for the exact same idea? What practical (bad) consequences has this had for the non-Chalcedonian Churches? Has this different interpretation of the same doctrine had further consequences in their Theology? I mean, Western Undersatnding of Original Sin is said to have spawned off a very distinct and even harmful theology, coming to its head in the Reformed doctrine of Double-predestination. Has this happened in the Oriental Churches? The council was held on our turf, so it seems we had the home-court advantage and, so, "winning" was in our favor either way. Were this to be held in Askum on Copt turf, it may have ended the same way but with them claiming "victory" and us claiming the Council as invalid. Perhaps at that time we weren't ready to understand another cultural version of what is (perhaps) essentially the same doctrine.

Also, another question about the Ecumenical Councils. This may seem like splitting hairs, but wouldn't we say that Councils try to recognize truths rather than create them? Is it not possible that we (both the Copts and the Orhtodox) "recognized" a division in doctrine that really wasn't there? Can the Church create division or only recognize it? Obviously there is an hierarchical division between the two Churches right now, but are we really divided spiritually?

I'm sorry I am rambling so much. This whole thread is fascninating to me. Thanks for you patience.

James

M.C. Steenberg

03-09-2004, 10:57 AM

Dear Fr Anthony and others,

I was interested to read your comments in response to those in previous posts by others. Particularly the following dialogue:

Matt: And can an (ecumenical) council be understood to have either missed a point or raised more questions than it solved? I would say yes. This does NOT mean that Chalcedon is in error theologically, but rather that it may not have solved the problem.

Fr Anthony: Of course it solved the problem. The fact that there are those who refused obedience to the Council (and continue to do so) does not make the Council to be in error, or incomplete.

I agree with your point in principle, however, we must be careful in our application of this. It is reasonable and truthful to say that the council at Nicaea, for example, 'solved' the 'problem' of the relationship of the Father to the Son by its profession of the homoousion, inasmuch as this was and is seen as the pinnacle expression in human terms of the consubstantiality of the divine essence among the Trinitarian persons. Yet it would be foolish of us not also to admit that this council, to use Matt's words, 'raised more questions than it solved'. Two centuries of intense and heated debate within the Church following Nicaea bear testimony to this. It is also not inaccurate to say, as Matt did, what at first might seem more audacious: that the council 'may not have solved the problem'. We can take such a comment in a way with which I believe you (and certainly I) would disagree, namely, that the council did not deal theologically with the matter in an effective way. If one is obedient to the faith of the Church, one must dismiss this. But if we look at the 'problem' as deeper than only the theological issue, but also including the matter of uniting the Church's faithful behind the proper understanding of such an issue, then the 'problem' may continue even after the theological dispute is solved definitively. In this light, Nicaea 'caused' a great many problems, in that teaching the faithful how to approach and understand the homoousion took centuries, during which point disputes arose and factions battled, and for a time the pro-Nicene faithful were in the steep minority.

INXC, Matthew

Grigorii (Jarno) Wasse

03-09-2004, 01:04 PM

Dearest to Christ Sarah,

I think that the question for the oriental orthdox is whether we have indeed maintained the orthodox faith from the apostolic times. Has the faith deviated from that of the apostolic faith at all?

No. That is not a question, it is a fact. The Oriental Orthodox are fully and completely Orthodox, whether or not "we" (Chalcedonians) like it. The Council of Chalcedon was not ecumenically accepted, and should not be listed as equal to the first 3 Ecumenical Councils that have been ecumenically received. We, Eastern Orthodox, will simply have to find a way to deal with the fact that Copts (and other Oriental Orthodox) are in fact Orthodox, and that Chalcedon was not ecumenically received and as such does not constitute a true Ecumenical Council; tho I have not seen any other EO draw this conclusion, it is the logical outcome of what has been stated in a common agreement between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox:

"We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition, though as Churches we have been separated from each other for centuries. As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the common apostolic faith of the undivided church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed. What follows is a simple reverent statement of what we do believe on our way to restore communion between our two families of Orthodox Churches."

"Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son."

Iow, there is One Orthodox Church and it is constituted by Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.Two families in one Orthodox Church.

Our Bishop, Simon of Brussels Patriarchate of Moscow, allows Copts, Ethiopians, and Syrians to take Communion with us if only they become Parish members. No baptism, not chrismation, nothing of such nature is necessary to receive fellow-Orthodox (deprived of their own Parish) into communion.

I am no specialist on canons and conciliar proceedings, but I do know the life of the Russian Orthodox Church as it is given to me to participate in, and Copts and Syrians are very much a part of it. They, being Orthodox Christians, too are invited to partake of this life, and our priests recognize Orthodoxy in them, as is ordained by our Bishop.

IC XC
Grigorii

M.C. Steenberg

04-09-2004, 04:06 PM

The question over whether the council of Chalcedon was ecumenical is perhaps the real non-question. It certainly was. The fact that it was not 'ecumenically accepted' (that is, accepted by all Christians throughout the oikonomia) does not change or challenge this. In point of fact, none of the ecumenical councils has ever been universally accepted -- going back to the very first, at Nicaea. Vast portions of the Church rejected the determinations of this council, and, as I mentioned in a previous post, there was a period in the fourth-fifth centuries when pro-Nicenes were in the minority.

Ecumenical councils do not become ecumenical by matter of democratic majority in the acceptance of their determinations.

INXC, Matthew

Kevin Teo

04-09-2004, 04:17 PM

M.C. Steenberg wrote,
<<In point of fact, none of the ecumenical councils has ever been universally accepted -- going back to the very first, at Nicaea. Vast portions of the Church rejected the determinations of this council, and, as I mentioned in a previous post, there was a period in the fourth-fifth centuries when pro-Nicenes were in the minority.

Ecumenical councils do not become ecumenical by matter of democratic majority in the acceptance of their determinations. >>

It has been a known fact that a large part of the Church in the 4th century AD was very sympathetic to Arius' heresy, such that it led to Athanasius' excommunication or deposal for at least five times. What I am curious to know then is how in this sense, since the conclusions of the council are not universally accepted, are their conclusions agreed upon to be truth. In other words, what is the basis for believing and agreeing that these ecumenical councils encapsulate truth as the Bible would have us believe?

I am rather curious particularly in the sense that later councils which occur after the separation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (gradually) such as the Council of Trent in 1542 is seen to encapsulate the Catholic faith's defense against the Protestants. In what capacity does Orthodoxy then view these later councils?

matt

04-09-2004, 08:54 PM

If anyone has the book, Meyendorff's "living tradition" has a chapter on the constitution of an ecumenical council. The is also a book entitled "Christ in East and West" which examens the history and outcomes of Chalcedon in detail if you have an interest in the politics and personalities, as well as the theology, behind the Council.
I also wanted to add this to get feedback: Our Lord Jesus Christ was born to break the power of death by death and unite us to God by being fully God and fully man in nature. Of course no one on this forum would deny that His death was part of the plan of the Father before the foundations of the world. However, God used men, Synagogue and State, to bring His economy to fulfillment, to bring about a new the beginning of a new creation in each of us and the cosmos as a whole. But some secularists may reply that it was simply that Jesus of nazareth was a trouble maker, maybe a wonderworker, and died for saying too much. Of course they discount the resurrection, but that is not my point.

My point is that I think it is not too impious to say that God can write straight with our crooked lines and that even our own selfish motivations can be used for his Glory and our salvation.

In terms of the Ecumenical Councils, I do not think that one must deny or even question the infallible role of the Holy Spirit working through the bishops and politicians and laity when and if one is honest and speaks about the various tensions, jealousies, betrayals, etc that have been at work in the members of the Church from time to time at such gatherings. This does not lesson the greatness of the creeds or say that somehow God's truth wasn't spoken. Is Christ one divine Person in Two distinct natures? Yes, this is our faith. But there remains the problems that have not been soleved between the various patriarchates that had at their root more than only theological issues. So dialogue must be on at least two fronts- theological and pastoral. In the case of ROme adn the Orthodox, i believe the latter is fully realized on the Roman side but that the Orthodox have their pride to give up before we can talk about the faith that unites or divides us. Perhaps this is less true with the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.

And I wonder if anyone can speak to teh distinction made in the Fathers between heretical and schismatic sects, along with distinctions made between their sacramental (and epiiscopal) "validity". I have not read this stuff in many years, but it seems to me that the Cappadocians made such a distinction but failed to elaborate on it. Is this true? Anyone?

M.C. Steenberg

04-09-2004, 09:03 PM

Dear Kevin Teo,

You wrote:

It has been a known fact that a large part of the Church in the 4th century AD was very sympathetic to Arius' heresy, such that it led to Athanasius' excommunication or deposal for at least five times. What I am curious to know then is how in this sense, since the conclusions of the council are not universally accepted, are their conclusions agreed upon to be truth. In other words, what is the basis for believing and agreeing that these ecumenical councils encapsulate truth as the Bible would have us believe?

This is often, I think, the most difficult aspect for many people to accept of the Church's conciliar body. How does one know that a given council is truly 'ecumenical', that it presents the ultimate truth of the Christian gospel?

There are a number of things to consider. First is the Orthodox belief that the councils are not only the fruitful labour of the successors to the apostles (the bishops) called into faithful deliberation over matters of dispute, but also that they are the forum of the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church -- the Spirit whom Christ sent to His body, to be with it always, 'even to the end of the age'. The Church believes that the Spirit guides the deliberations of these councils, such that through all their debating, discussions, disputes and even arguments, the truth of the Gospel is ultimately that which prevails.

The full recognition that the truth has indeed prevailed in a given council has, historically in any case, often been long in coming. The council at Nicaea, for example, at first declared itself 'universal' (i.e. ecumenical) inasmuch as it was, as much as could be realistically attempted, genuinely a coming together of all the Church's leadership throughout the world. It was ecumenical in the practical, literal sense. But the Church did not come fully to proclaim the ecumenical authority of Nicaea's doctrinal statements until later, at a subsequent council (Constantinople), which proclaimed definitively that the proceedings of the 'great and holy council' (Nicaea) were of divine and truthful authority. So that which the Holy Spirit guided into truth, took some time to be recognised fully for the security of this truth.

The Church's 'retrospective consciousness', that is, its ability to look back over its past with the awareness of subsequent events and deliberations, is also important. Those fathers gathered at Constantinople, for example, could look back on the statements from Nicaea in the face of all that had been debated since they were issued, and proclaim solemnly that Nicaea had authoritatively set forth the true faith of the Church -- a fact which the subsequent disputes had only made yet clearer. This would be just as much the case at Ephesus in 431, when the fathers there would look to the disputes of Christ's personhood with respect to His mother, and re-acclaim the teachings of Nicaea and Constantinople as 'ecumenical', of universal authority and truth. So too with Chalcedon two decades later, which itself looked to Ephesus and claimed it as ecumenical in authority, further clarifying its statements in the light of twenty years of continued disputes with those who had not accepted the teachings of the former.

By this process of retrospective affirmation, the Church has been able throughout her history constantly to re-acclaim that the the Spirit guided certain councils into right deliberation, for the truths they proclaimed have 'held up' to all the debates waged around them before and after their statements were issued. The Church also falls heavily upon the shoulders of the fathers who have supported her, and these have themselves offer the same manner of affirmation of the truth and ecumenical authority of the councils.

I hope these comments begin to offer some food for thought!

INXC, Matthew

Sarah Mikhail

05-09-2004, 04:25 PM

Hi all,

Greetings in Christ,

Being a memeber of the coptic church i have been following this thread quite intently and it was great to come back and find the thread had progressed so rapidly (being a hotmail account user, my inbox was almost full).

anywayz....i was interested in Fr Anthony's post,

Quote:
"the claims made about the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites are usually that a) they and the Chalcedonians misunderstood each other (which must mean that the Holy Spirit did not understand either, or that He does not guide the Church in Council: both blasphemous, I think) or b) perhaps the nonChalcedonians *did* have it wrong, but not anymore, so now it's O.K. - which is nonsense because one who is *not* Orthodox and a member of the Church does not *become* Orthodox and a member of the Church simply by coming to Orthodox belief...that's just the first step."

I agree that one does not become orthodox just through faith but through a uniting with the true church through the grace of the sacraments. I do not think that the non-chalcedonians had it wrong neither do i belive that the Eastern Orthdox church had it wrong becuase their terminology was not mutualy exclusive, the Holy Spirit used the council of Chalcedon to affirm (?) that Christ was both FULLY human and FULLY divine without mingling, confusion or alteration (as we say in the divine liturgy) also that it was a true union of divinity and humanity not just a conjoining as nestorious claimed. that the Council anathematized those that belived that christ's humanity was consumed or lost in his divinity is something applauded by both the Eastern and oriental orthdox, however i do belive that there was a human aspect to this council, that politics and the different herecies present in each side of the "world" added an element of rigity to the council making the Oreintal quite suspicious of the term "two natures" and the Eastern of the term "mia physis" (as opposed to mono-physis)i think that the primary reason the non-chalcedonian's refuse to accept this council is because it anathamatised anyone not using the term "two natures" which goes against the Cyrillian formula so often used by the Oreiental church. It was not a matter of rejecting the christolgy. Both sides anathamtized one another on a matter of terminolgy rather then christology (which is what most of us are taught at youth group anyways) i don't think it would be blashemous to say that they misinterpreted each other as the christology remained the same on both sides.

sorry for the long post but this is the undertanding given to me by my Church, i'm happy to be corrected

In Christ
Sarah

p.s can i say that christ has 3 natures? seeing as the human nature consists of 2 united natures (physical and spiritual)? http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif sorry just stirring the pot

James H.

06-09-2004, 09:34 AM

Sister in Christ Sarah,

That was the most excellent post I have read in regards to the Chalcedonian controversy. Thank you for your post and God bless you!

James

Father Anthony

07-09-2004, 03:02 AM

M.C. Steenberg wrote:

>I am rather curious particularly in the sense that later councils which > occur after the separation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy >(gradually) such as the Council of Trent in 1542 is seen to encapsulate >the Catholic faith's defense against the Protestants. In what capacity >does Orthodoxy then view these later councils?

I'm not completely sure what the writer means...does "...these later councils" refer to the councils held by the Roman Catholics, or to Local Councils of the the various Orthodox Local Churches?

If the reference is to councils of the Roman Catholics, they are of no consequence at all to the Orthodox, since they are local councils of a (first) schismatic and (secondly) heretical local church which cut itself off from the Church.

If the reference is to councils of Local Orthodox Churches, that's another matter altogether. They are certainly binding on the Local Church which held them, insofar as they do not depart from that which is Orthodox. They may be accepted and binding on the other Churches, as well.

Fr. Anthony

M.C. Steenberg

07-09-2004, 10:10 AM

Actually, Fr Anthony, I did not write those words! Your quotation, attributed to me, in your earlier post, is actually from someone else. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

07-09-2004, 02:50 PM

p.s can i say that christ has 3 natures? seeing as the human nature consists of 2 united natures (physical and spiritual)?

We can say whatever we want, however, when we choose to say something the Church does not, we run the risks inherent in choosing (which is the essence of heresy?)

Herman

Sarah Mikhail

07-09-2004, 03:52 PM

LOL

thanks Herman, although i wasn't serious when i added that last line...

pray for me
in Christ
Sarah

David Watkins

14-09-2004, 03:01 AM

i think that the primary reason the non-chalcedonian's refuse to accept this council is because it anathamatised anyone not using the term "two natures" which goes against the Cyrillian formula so often used by the Oreiental church. It was not a matter of rejecting the christolgy. Both sides anathamtized one another on a matter of terminolgy rather then christology (which is what most of us are taught at youth group anyways) i don't think it would be blashemous to say that they misinterpreted each other as the christology remained the same on both sides.

If so, the question then would be how to correct this misunderstanding. As others have suggested, it would seem to fall to another council.

In the meantime, can it be determined by the hierarchies of our Churches to allow through "economia" that the non-Chalcedonian faithful can be communed?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-09-2004, 04:48 PM

I think there are two distinct questions here. One is how we see the past of our Church & what the essence of the disagreement was between the Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians. If, as we should, we accept that the Holy Spirit guided the Holy Frs at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and further guided the pronouncements of the Holy Fathers concerning the Monophysite and Monothelite dispute then it would seem that there was no misunderstanding or confusion of terminology in the past. I have read a number of the documents of the time from both sides and the first thing that strikes one is the mountain of subtle thought & consideration given by both sides to this dispute. In a word the evidence seems to show that both sides very clearly understood each other and disagreed on a fundamental question of Christ's nature (Fr George Florovsky goes into the roots of this in a way I have not yet seen elsewhere). In my subsequent reading I also discovered that non-Chalcedonian asceticism became different in quality from that of Orthodoxy with its Chalcedonian emphasis chiefly as expressed through its monasticism. To put it very briefly, to maintain that the dispute was the result of a misunderstanding is to literally maintain that someone like St. Maximos the Confessor misunderstood (eg in his disputation with Pyrrhus). Conversely this also implies that we know better than the saints & Councils.

On the other hand it is quite possible that there has been a movement of the non-Chalcedonians towards Orthodoxy in the last century. I have read through the documents provided by this site on this dispute and had to admit that both sides were closer theologically than I had thought.

Related to this is the question of how reconciliation can occur within the Church. There is an interesting article on reconciliation to be found at :http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/articles/primirenie.html
If you scroll through this article a ways you will find references and quotes from A.V. Kartashev on "The Unification of the Church in Historical Light." In this article Kartashev outlines the subtle and unexpected ways in which the Holy Spirit (only through the willing cooperation of those on both sides though!) has healed various seperations not only of schism but of downright heresy. To maintain that the only way in which reconciliation can take place is through a great prostration before the Church with cries of "forgive me!" is quite wrong. What is required is unity of mind about the Orthodox Faith. Having achieved this the Church in the past has shown a remarkable ability to forgive and overlook past wrongs and mistakes.

Of course in all of this we must have the guidance of our hierarchs since we are dealing with crucial matters such as reception of the sacraments. I agree with the statement already made that in piety the non-Chalcedonians often put us to shame and can teach us some needed lessons. I think reconciliation is possible avoiding on the one hand the attitude that there really was no dispute in the past (or in the present for that matter); and on the other avoiding a misunderstanding of what reconciliation really means and involves for the Church.

Our tendency nowadays is often to try to promote reconciliation by having an attitude that the mistakes of the past were of no consequence or did not in fact occur. Church reconciliation however is an entirely different matter- after achieving unity of mind & heart it covers with love the brokeness of the past. Is this not because the Church is not a negotiating group but rather the Body of Christ the only means of true healing which we can find?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

05-06-2005, 08:52 AM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and Blessings to you:

With all due respect, I think there are extreme presuppositions underlying your post which you will need to justify for the sake of objectivity – a) the infallibility of the Church and Councils and b) the Ecumenicity of councils 4-7 (you keep regressing into circular reasoning on this one).

I have conversed with many "extremist" EO's who possess the same line of thought which you convey, in which they have some sort of a conception of church fathers as God's, or the Church as some kind of incarnate fourth member of the Godhead. You imply that a retrospective analysis of certain councils in order to discern via reason and consideration of historical fact - whether indeed they are valid authorities as you proclaim or invalid as we proclaim - would be blasphemous. I propose the contrary, namely, that your conception of the Church and Councils as infallible to the extent that every minute, proclamation, condemnation, ex-communication etc. is infallible such that it is impossible to see retrospectively and where and why certain fathers or a council got it wrong (e.g. false condemnations etc.), is in itself a blasphemy.

It seems that only the Oriental Orthodox Church is secure in her faith; able to maintain a healthy authoritative conception of the Church, patriarch, and the Bible, without turning them into infallible Gods. The insecurity of Protestants is evident in their assigning infallibility to the Biblical text – in effect therefore (like the Muslims) they worship a book, the text becomes their God. The insecurity of the Roman Catholics is evident in their assigning infallibility to the Pope – in effect their pope becomes their God. The insecurity of certain EO figures (since I have indeed spoken to many reasonable EO’s who do not advocate this view) is evident in their assigning infallibility to the Church – in effect, the Church becomes their God.

The only infallible source for the Oriental Orthodox Church is God Himself, the Blessed Trinity. The Bible, the Patriarchs, and the Councils are all based on human/divine synergy, however the Holy Spirit does not force itself upon anyone or the Church itself – though it may restrict the damage a certain father/Church is capable of, it does not divinize that father/Church to the extent that all his/her dealings are impeccably perfect. The Church was/is lead and guided into all truth through the very Spirit of Truth as promised by our Lord – but there is no more a message or implication of infallible/impeccable guidance in all the Church’s dealings here; than there is foe example, when St Paul speaks through the Holy Spirit saying that all Scripture is God breathed. Clearly we can find errors in the Bible of an historical nature for example, which prove the human aspect of its construction and formulation, so that even such strong language concerning its inspiration does not negate human error. We should be able to do the same concerning the history and dealings of the Church.

The Holy Spirit worked through Chalcedon by making sure heresy was not adopted as Orthodoxy – It condemned two extreme heresies - one which was already dealt with, and another which probably didn't even really exist; but aside from this, I do not see why it should be inconceivable to acknowledge the evidence that proves that there was human misunderstanding. I'm not talking about an honest misunderstanding which the the Holy Spirit could easily have prevented, I am talking about a misunderstanding based on envy, greed, unholy grudges, politics etc. i.e. human evils, which in addition to the Councils being tainted by over-zealous polemics, would have grieved the Spirit of God, leading ultimately to an unwarranted schism - a schism that was the work of man against rather than for the will of God (in the sense that there was no real genuine reason to support it at the time).

Furthermore, that the Holy Spirit was at work at Chalcedon to prevent the adoption of a heresy, does not mean it had anything to do with the positive theological contribution of the Council to Orhodoxy- which I believe, simply don't exist. It is said that Chalcedon provided the much needed balance between Alexandrian and Antiochene Christology - I say this is a farce, and a conclusion drawn only when Chalcedon is anachronistically studied in a sixth century context. We believe Alexandrian Christology is in and of itself the stronger Christology, the one vindicated at Ephesus 431. We believe the Antiochene concerns were successfully dealt with and incorporated via the reunion formula of 433. Chalcedon added nothing, but rather regressed, by essentially ratifying the antiochene twist of the re-union formula. Such a move was a dangerous compromise of the achievements of Ephesus 431 - for whilst the Nestorians could never accept Ephesus 431, or the 12 chapters - they happily recieved both Chalcedon 451, and the tome of Leo.

All these briefly mentioned points negate the Ecumenicity of the council of Chalcedon, and I have yet to find an EO reasonably deal with these points, to then go on and prove the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon. Your reasoning as I stated above, seems to be begging the question. It is something along the lines of this: "We cannot question the happenings at Chalcedon, because Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council, and Ecumenical Councils cannot be questioned, because they are infallible."

How do you know Chalcedon is Ecumenical? Is there any objectivity to your reasoning, or are you only capable of asserting your subjective position i.e. “because my fathers said so”. My Church has maintained since its rejection of Chalcedon, that it was not an Ecumenical Council – so If I were to respond at this level and confirm that I cannot accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical since likewise “my fathers said so”; then whose subjective position prevails in the objective world? In modern days, our Hierarchs have acknowledged that councils 4-7 are merely local Orthodox Councils for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and can be accepted as such, but in no way can they be considered “Ecumenical”, and we have listed a number of valid reasons based on historical fact as to why our initial and maintained rejection of the Ecumenicity of these councils is justified and valid.

I find that the EO Church in contrast to the OO Church, is an Orthodox Church without reason. You presuppose the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon, whilst we prove that it is nothing beyond a local Orthodox council of schism. The God-given-and-preserved historical evidence is on our side – such that consequently most of the EO positions that i've been acquainted with simply resort to blind arguments void of reason and fact – I guess that’s what happens when certain See’s try to undermine the See of Alexandria – the true theological centre and brain of the Orthodox World, which was prophesied in the Holy Scriptures.

On the other hand it is quite possible that there has been a movement of the non-Chalcedonians towards Orthodoxy in the last century.

Nonsense. The Oriental Orthodox Church has never compromised or changed its Orthodox Christological position since the time of Chalcedon. I challenge you to find any evidence of this. We have maintained the Orthodox Apostolic tradition; remaining faithful to the Alexandrian tradition of Christology which was developed by St Athanasius and St Cyril, and which reached it's sufficient peak by 433. Chalcedon contributed nothing to Orthodox Christology, it was a disaster, it was regression, it was superflous. If you find Orthodoxy in our doctrine today, that is evidence of our Orthodoxy during Chalcedon, for never have we innovated or compromised any aspect of the tradition we received from our fathers.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Theopesta

05-06-2005, 11:34 AM

forgive me athanasius, I cannot complete your item I stop at:

The only infallible source for the Oriental Orthodox Church is God Himself, the Blessed Trinity. The Bible, the Patriarchs, and the Councils are all based on human/divine synergy

we the oriental belive in the infallibility of the bible if there is misunderstanding of any thing, pray and study the bible you will not find any thing contra to anthor all over the old and new testament.

forgive me if you study the dogmatic theology you will understand more perfect the oriental opinion, which is not cretic to the infallibility of the bible.

after I finish the reading I will send anthor message

Theopesta

05-06-2005, 11:52 AM

please Athanasius, be careful from the uncanonical orthodox thought, wich try to decrease from the authority of the church, of fathers, of patriarch.

we not belive wthe the infallability of the persons this is ok.

I think nearlly the thougts of father Rafial is the canonical orthodox concepts. If you want to read the dogmatological coptic books it is easy downloaded from the copticpope.org.

Athanasius Abdullah

05-06-2005, 11:54 AM

Dearest to Christ theopesta dem,

Peace and blessings be with you:

The conception of the Bible as an infallible/inerrant text, is a western Protestant one that I have not found grounded in patristic tradition. I do not want to go off topic here, but I will quickly make my case.

Though certain figures such as Tatian, attempted to reconcile apparant contradictions, Origen of Alexandria recognized that some of the proposed harmonizations were incredible and admitted that at an historical level certain contradictions did in fact exist. However he stressed an allegorical interpretation of scripture could harmonize accounts that would seem to contradict if taken literally.

Likewise St John Chrysostom in commenting on the harmony of the Gospel accounts in general states: “But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said...[but those things]...which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.” (Homilies of the Gospel of St Matthew).

St John Chrysostom hit the nail on the head. The essence of our faith is preserved such that there are no doctrinal or theological contradictions, but in regarding the human aspect of the Bible, we can admit to certain historical or even scientific contradictions which are certainly not to the detriment of our faith.

We do not falsely regard the Bible as the Muslims regard their Quran. I would consider this haram. We do not worship a book. The Bible is a church document made for the Church - and not the other way around as the Protestants would have us believe.

Have faith in the infallibility of our Lord, the Son of God, ibn allah al-wahid, and Him alone, who through His Spirit, inspired: the Prophets and Apostles to write their accounts, the Church to be lead into all truth, and the leaders of the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church to guide the Church into this truth - leaving significant leeway for the human side of things to operate according to the human-divine synergy, by which the Bible, Church, and Patriarchs operate.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

05-06-2005, 12:57 PM

Dear MOnophysite Friends,

Let's first see the false doctrines:
A) Arianism doctrine : The doctrines of Arius, deny that Jesus was of the same substance as God and holding instead that he was only the highest of created beings, viewed as heretical by most Christian churches. Arianism founded by Arius in the 4th cent. It was one of the most widespread and divisive heresies in the history of Christianity. As a priest in Alexandria, Arius taught (c.318) that God created, before all things, a Son who was the first creature, but who was neither equal to nor coeternal with the Father. According to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and not quite divine. In these ideas Arius followed the school of Lucian of Antioch.

B) Nestorianism doctrine: Christian heresy that held Jesus to be two distinct persons, closely and inseparably united. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II named an abbot of Antioch, Nestorius (d. 451?), as patriarch of Constantinople. In that year Nestorius, who had been a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, outraged the Christian world by opposing the use of the title Mother of God for the Virgin on the grounds that, while the Father begot Jesus as God, Mary bore him as a man. This view was contradicted by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and both sides appealed to Pope Celestine I. The Council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to settle the matter. This council (reinforced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451) clarified Christian doctrine, pronouncing that Jesus, true God and true man, has two distinct natures that are inseparably joined in one person and partake of the one divine substance. The council, answered with the text 'The Word was made flesh' (John i, T4): Mary is God's mother, for 'she bore the Word of God made flesh'.' What Mary bore was not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided person, who is God and man at once. The name Theotokos safeguards the unity of Christ's person: to deny her this title is to separate the Incarnate Christ into two, breaking down the bridge between God and humanity and erecting within Christ's person a middle wall of partition. Thus we can see that not only titles of devotion were involved at Ephesus, but the very message of salvation. The same primacy that the word homoousios occupies in the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Theotokos holds in the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Now let's see the "non-Chalcedonian" issue: (I use the term Monophysitism, but you may use the term Non-Chalcedonians. I do not hold the term Monophysitism as an insult but as a historical "label").

Monophysitism grew out of a reaction against Nestorianism. Monophysitism challenged the orthodox definition of faith of Chalcedon and taught that in Jesus there were not two natures (divine and human) but one (divine). Discussion of this belief was clouded by misunderstandings of terms and by the lack of knowledge of Greek in the West.

Many modern scholars are inclined to think that the difference between 'Non-Chalcedonians' and 'Chalcedonians' was basically one of terminology, not of theology. The two parties understood the word 'nature' (physis) in different ways, but both were concerned to affirm the same basic truth: that Christ the Saviour is fully divine and fully human, and yet He is one and not two.

Let's see what the official non-Chalcedonian point of view is:

Bishop Gregorios [Coptic]: We are asked why, if we accept the faith of Chalcedon, we do not accept the council itself. The fact is the we have difficulties about the horos [definition] of Chalcedon. Our fathers found Nestorianism in the horos of Chalcedon.... Even if we accept the teaching of Chalcedon, we are not obliged to accept Chalcedon.

Liqe Seltanat Habte Mariam [Ethiopian]: By all means, you continue to believe in Chalcedon; but do not expect us to accept Chalcedon.

Bishop Zakka [Syrian]: When we say we accept the faith, we mean the faith that the Church had before Chalcedon, formulated by the three ecumenical councils accepted by all. Let us be quite clear; Chalcedon is not acceptable to us.

Verghese: When the faith is already there without Chalcedon why insist on Chalcedon being accepted? There should be no misunderstanding of the position of the non-Chalcedonian Churches; there will be no formal acceptance of Chalcedon.

Now let's see the Greek Orthodox Church thesis as it is expressed from Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh in his essay: THE CHURCH OF THE COUNCILS: THE "ONSLAUGHT OF THE INTELLECT AND THE POTENTIAL OF DOUBT (http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_08.htm).
...
At that stage another phenomenon came to the fore. It was what Daniel-Rops has called the 'great onslaught of the intellect'. The intellect marks the period of the Councils. People submit the faith to the criteria of their intellectual acceptance or rejection. Is it possible to believe this and that? Is it possible to accept such and such realities testified by the apostles and proclaimed by the Church? Can one reasonably be a Christian?

On the lowest level, it could have been seen that way. On a higher level, for instance that of Arius, the problem was more complex and more earnest. For Arius was a man of great culture and of outstanding intelligence. And he submitted the Christian faith to the test of philosophical assessment. One may see that he is an outstanding example of what a heresy can be when the intellect is considered as empowered to judge revelation, to judge the formulations of those who possess an experience which the observer himself does not possess, either at all or to the same degree. For Arius, the problem was basically that God could not become man since an infinite God could never become the prisoner of finitude. God was eternal, and could not become the prisoner of time. And in those days (and I refer once again to Florovsky, since for me his word has enormous value) no Arius could resolve the problem. Indeed, it took centuries of philosophical and scientific reflection and research to arrive at a vision of time which can accommodate the notion of eternity and space. For the first scientific book I know which really faces the problem (Emile Borel, Le temps et l'espace) was only written at the turn of the century. Before that, there was no scientific or philosophical basis that would allow someone to make the distinction and yet to realise that there is no contradiction in eternity pouring into time and not being a prisoner of it, or in infinity being within space and not being limited by it. Time and space, eternity and infinity were simply different categories.
...
What we find in this period of the Councils is people who try to address the gospel proclaimed by the Church from the first days to their own time against the background of classical philosophy or of the various philosophies and mystery religions that had developed later. Some harm could have been done because some of the imagery could be compared with that of the gospel and could thus be used as an accusation that the gospel itself is simply a new mythology.

Doubts were engendered in the minds of many: is not Christianity simply a more elaborate and philosophically more acceptable myth, but still of the same kind (and as unreal) as the mythology of the various nations of the past? As philosophical thought developed, as philosophy taken from the ancient world acquired a new maturity, the intellect came to feel self-sufficient, no longer in need of being guided by God himself. Thus problems arose from the confrontation of a mature intellect with the problem of faith.
...
Perhaps I should say a few words about the nature of doubt in this context.... Let me make a parallel between the doubt, or succession of doubts, which a fever can have, and the way in which a scientist confronts created reality. A scientist collects all the existing facts of which he is aware. To begin with they are disparate; they may belong together in any way. The scientist tries to group them and at a certain moment, when a number of facts are capable of being held together, a model is built that allows him to hold all these facts together and reason about in their totality. If the scientist is honest and creative, the first thing he will do is to ask himself whether his model holds, whether it is a model that has no intrinsic flaw within itself, whether it takes into account all the information possessed to date. If he is satisfied on these counts, his next move will be to look for new facts that will not fit in with his model and will explode it. For the aim of a scientist list is not to create a model for which he will be remembered in the history of science. His aim is to create temporary models, hypotheses; models that must explode in order to enlarge knowledge and to contain new knowledge. Doubt in that respect for a scientist is a creative activity, an activity which is elating because the discovery that something does not fit in a preconceived or ready-made model allows him to discover reality on a wider scale and to see that reality unfolds wider and wider, deeper and deeper, making it possible for him to discard one hypothesis after the other, one model after the other. For him reality is unshakeable and cannot be lost because the model is exploded.

What is tragic in the doubt which we find in a believer is that instead of saying that the model of God, of creation, of the Church, of man which satisfied him fifty years ago no longer satisfied him, can no longer satisfy his intellectual and spiritual development, he makes an either/or decision: either to retrench himself in the old or to abandon his former position altogether. Whereas the developing person who rejects the model he earlier had of God or the creation when confronted with the depths and range of science or of philosophy, is proceeding with something not only legitimate but essential. By contrast, a believer who at the age of eighteen or eighty would remain faithful to a model adequate for an eight-year-old would be spiritually and mentally backward, incapable for communing with all the vastness, depth and greatness of God and of his creation.

We are confronted with such problems in the period of the Councils. But has the Church of the Councils come to an end? I think not. It has not come to an end because the same onslaught of the intellect, the same onslaught of the godless approach to divine things, has continued throughout the ages. It is in action nowadays, within the Church and from without. And if we ask ourselves about heresies and heretics, what their position vis-a-vis the Church is, I would like to point out two things. First, the Church was right in condemning the heresies. But the Church which condemned the heresies from within an experience and a certainty often did so without explaining why this heresy could not be acceptable on the intellectual, rather than the spiritual plane. What I said about Arius, and the fact that in his time the distinction between time and eternity, space and infinity, was not philosophically and scientifically mature, allows people in our days to reason in the same terms. For the Church has not taken advantage of what philosophy and science have discovered and understood about these categories, has not explained what an Athanasius could not explain in his time in scientific or philosophical terms. And that could apply to every other heresy. Thus there is a task for people of our time who are conversant with philosophy or steeped in scientific knowledge. They have to reconsider the ancient heresies and ask themselves whether there is some sort of answer that can now be given from a point of view which is not simply the experiential point of view of the early centuries. For however intellectually mature that was, it failed to solve the problem on the level of the questioner who came from outside.
...
We do not hold ecumenical councils, we are far too disorderly and too divided. But each and every Christian, each parish, diocese, denomination, is confronted with the same problem as the undivided Church when it had to face the outer world, heretical, pagan or godless. And we also need to go beyond condemnation of it in order to achieve its salvation.

Athanasius Abdullah

05-06-2005, 01:41 PM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

First allow me to make clear my own personal conditions for dialogue. I am both willing and desiring to have intellectual discourse with Chalcedonians on this very sensitive issue; however to avoid temptation, let me make it clear that I will not address nor respond to those who choose to bear false testimony against my Church and I, by dishonestly labelling us with the deragtory monophysite title, without evidence that we ever adhered to such a heresy.

Thus, unless you can prove for me from any authoritative Oriental Orthodox document; where we have ever affirmed the essential attributes of such a heresy: a) A denial of the continuing reality of the divine and human natures after the union b) A denial of the consubstantiality of the divine to the Father and the human to mankind, after the union - then I cannot converse with dishonest persons im afraid. Please forgive me.

If you would like to have a strictly academic and neutral dialogue you will refer to as a non-Chalcedonian and I will refer to you as a Chalcedonian.

If you wish to label me a monophysite, then do it in the same manner as contemporary Protestant scholars such as Gerald O'Collins and Frances Young, by following such an accusation against St Cyril, in acknowledgement of the fact that we remained faithful to his Christology which was set as the standard of Orthodoxy at an indusptable Ecumenical Council: Ephesus 431.

Furthermore, I like to deal with people who do not merely paste articles out of intellectual laziness (no disrespect intended). I have seen this article pasted before, and I have the link to it. It really doesn't serve much of a purpose in this dialogue - the quotations of the Oriental Orthodox heirarchs in question do not do justice to the context of our actual position.

Three quotes merely explain that we cannot formally accept Chalcedon, and this is true - we will never regard it as an authoritative council or Ecumenical, but as His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of the Coptic Orthodox Church affirms; we regard them as local Orthodox Councils dealing with issues the Eastern Orthodox Church was confronted with and having problems with.

Monophysitism was a theoretical heresy, not a practical one - there was never such a thing as "the monophysite church" as there was a "nestorian church". it cannot even be concretely proven that Eutyches - the one individual figure to whom this heresy was ever ascribed to before the events of Chalcedon - ever ascribed to this heresy - though he is condemned by both our Church's on the assumption that he did indeed ascribe to such a heresy. However, the testimony against him was as inconsistent as his own testimony. He was just a simple and confused monk, he was no theologian or scholar.

Furthermore, the quote by Bishop Gregorios from the Coptic Orthodox Church, is not with regards to considering Chalcedon from the subjective context of the Chalcedonians, but rather from an objective perspective - how would the reasonable person reasonably interpret Chalcedon? Our Orthodox fathers, along with the Nestorian heretics found that Nestorianism could creep in via Chalcedon; hence the consequent rejection of it thereof by the former, and the consequent acceptance of it thereof by the latter.

With regards to the article on the Church and Councils - this is more relevant to a Protestant who does not regard the authority of the Church and Councils, and not to the Oriental Orthodox Church. The issue we have with you, is the fact that the council of Chalcedon unlike Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, and Ephesus 431 that preceded it...was NOT a valid Ecumenical Council, since it did not show the fruits of an Ecumenical Council according to the elements I mentioned in my intial posts, both in this thread and in the other on miaphysitism.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Ken McRae

05-06-2005, 03:08 PM

Dear Athanasius,

As you have specifically addressed Fr. Raphael, I must beg your forgiveness for my interjection. Your posts are interesting to read, I admit, and I'd like to make a comment, if you don't mind. Since you are relatively new here, I should mention that I am Catholic, and have been drawn to the examination of Orthodoxy through the witness of 19th Russian monasticism and the living witness of the Holy Mountain.

The comment I wish to make concerns your view or understanding of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. It is clear from your post that St. John believed in the infallibility of Scripture, but with some qualification, as you point out. "St John Chrysostom," you say, "in commenting on the harmony of the Gospel accounts in general states" that,

“ ... if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said...[but those things]...which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.”

To say, as St. John does, that these contradictions in no way injure the truth of Scripture, is the same as to say it is "infallible" with regard to the teachings of the faith. The point I wish to make is this: the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, as formulated in the Chalcedonian Church agrees fully with the teaching of St. John. You speak of being "intellectually" honest. Can you post for us some direct quotes taken from theological statements on the inerrancy of Scripture, produced by the Chalcedonians, which clearly and openly deny any form of contradiction in Scripture, such those admitted by St. John? Thank you.

humbly,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 05 June, 2005)

Theopesta

05-06-2005, 03:15 PM

please athansius,
about your post no.3:
the bible not a book as we not worship books.
the bible not a document or acounts of apostles.
the bible is inspiration not dictation.
this is word of god to know his will.
origin depend on allegorical interpretation as his personallty try to reach to the truth behind the words.
the percepts and thougt of bible not as quran, but it is the straight way which is the truth in infallability, but how you read the bible and from where you study its words.
i pig your pardon from where your thoughts, these thought not orthodox this not our faith.
please try to meet any one of our coptic orthodox fathers in usa,

leandros

05-06-2005, 05:10 PM

Dear friend,

Let me take you out of your wonder, as I am the original writer of my former post, which I had also posted in OC.net in the past. My reply is not the outcome of laziness.

As for the monophysite label, that you find insulting, I am not using the term according to the Arian doctrine, but according to the declaration of Coptic Pope Shenouda III, Patriarch of the See of St. Mark (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/nature_of_christ-20111.pdf) :
"By one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
...
Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well."

One nature is one physis, 'one' is the word 'mono' in Greek, so in this context I refer to you as 'mono-physite'. But as you find the term as an insult I apologize and I take it back.

As long as you prefer the term mia-physitism, it's ok with me. I understand the difference between the word 'mono' and the word 'mia': While the word mono implies that Christ's nature is singular both of its origin and of His realization, the word mia implies that Christ's nature while being dual of its origin, it ends up single as of His realization.

Nevertheless, I will gladly refer to you as non-Chalcedonian.

Now as for the substance of your arguments, nobody is accusing the non-Chalcedonians for Arianism. You asked if you are being accused for:
a) A denial of the continuing reality of the divine and human natures after the union
b) A denial of the consubstantiality of the divine to the Father and the human to mankind, after the union

Of course, you are being accused of neither of these.

Then, why is the separation between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians ? you may ask.

The difference between us is that we, Chalcedonains, declare in Christ a hypostatical union of human nature and Divine nature, in the context of unification of created and non-created natures. The end result of this unification is that Christ's nature is singular double. It is singular because it's a unification that hypostatically is expressed by ONE person, and it's double because created human nature and uncreated divine nature has nothing in common and they can not mixed in any way and they remain TWO.

On the other hand you, non-Chalcedonians, declare that in Christ "The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature".

This is the result of inability to comprehend how is it possible to have one person to give hypostasis to two different natures at once. This is a logical argument that presupposes that the attributes of a personhood results as the outcome of his nature. non-Chalcedonians declare that as long as two natures are, also there should be two persons - each for every nature. If we accept in Christ such a unification of natures then we end up in Nestorianism. Such a conclusion is unacceptable for non-Chalcedonias (it is also the same unacceptable for Chalcedonias too). So in this non-Chalcedonian context, Christ's nature has to be one nature, that is given hypostasis by the one person of Word, which consolidates both human and Devine attributes.

As you see, the difference is there. The question that has to be answered in a unified way, in order to unite the Chalcedonias and the non-Chalcedonians is, whether Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father, or it originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father.

We, Chalcedonias, have declared at the Chalcedon Council, that Christ as a Person originates his Uncreated Devine Personhood from his Uncreated personal Sonship relation with the Father, and not from his natural Sonship, or else His nature would have been the Godhead and his Personhood would have been its uncreated energy. For that we worship not a Divine Nature, but a Trinity of Persons of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, who are united in the Monarchy of the Father as the only non-caused Person; the other Two are caused by Him, the One by generation and the Other by provenance.

These relations between the Trinity Person are about the uncreated personal relations and not about the natural affinity of the Persons. In this context, Christ's human nature has no need to be divinized. It may be all human and He will still carry all Divine attributes of His.

In the acceptance of Christ's uncreated personal Sonship as a relationship with the Father, we introduce the oxymoron presence of uncreated personal relationship into our realm of created things, provided that Jesus is a real human being. This Divine Personal relationship is not of nature-less Persons. By that non-logical introduction, we are aware of the existence of the uncreated nature of God, while in the same time we lack of any experience or knowledge of this nature, as long as Christ has as a Person has an exclusive experience and Knowledge of Divine way of Life and he relates wit us in our common experience of our human way of life.

That is why we declare that the natures of Christ are TWO but He as ONE person gives hypostasis two both of them at once in a non-mixed, non-partite fashion.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-06-2005, 11:25 PM

Dear Athanasios Abdullah,

Just a couple of comments here as others are covering the meaning of Chalcedon very well.

That the Holy Fathers were not perfect is clear since they are human. But how the Church is guided is another matter since as the Body of Christ the Holy Spirit works through its members overcoming all that is weak & even fallen. So the Council of Chalcedon is an expression of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the fullness of Life & Truth. That this is so can only be understood in convergence with the Life of the Church or at least a sympathy for it. Otherwise there is no way to 'prove' such a thing. Nothing can 'prove' that Christ's Life as offered within the Church through Her life- including Her Councils- is True except for this Life itself which is shared with all. Seen rationally this is indeed a tautology- "in Thy Light do we see Light" (from the Doxology at Matins). But seen through the mind of the Church this is simply how Christ's Life is shared with us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

06-06-2005, 01:38 PM

Dearest to Christ Theophilus

Peace and blessings be with you:

To say, as St. John does, that these contradictions in no way injure the truth of Scripture, is the same as to say it is "infallible" with regard to the teachings of the faith.

I guess that some (especially in recent days) have made the distinction between the terms *infallible* and *inerrant*, where the former is a sort of “limited inerrancy”. That the “errors” of the Bible do not injure the doctrinal/spiritual truth conveyed, may thus lead one to conclude that the Bible is indeed “infallible”, though not "inerrant" by virtue of admission of such errors in the first place – it just depends on his/her semantic preferences. When I denied the *infallibility* of the Bible, I was essentially using the term as a synonym for *inerrancy*.

The point I wish to make is this: the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, as formulated in the Chalcedonian Church agrees fully with the teaching of St. John. You speak of being "intellectually" honest. Can you post for us some direct quotes taken from theological statements on the inerrancy of Scripture, produced by the Chalcedonians, which clearly and openly deny any form of contradiction in Scripture, such those admitted by St. John? Thank you.

I think you may have misread my post, for I never claimed that Chalcedonians openly deny any form of contradiction in Scripture – as I clearly stated, this was a line of thought evident in various Protestant circles. We as Orthodox - and by Orthodox I include both the Eastern and Oriental Church - acknowledge the existence of errors and contradictions in the Biblical text as an acknowledgement of the human aspect involved in its formulation and construction.

The inspiration of the Apostles, as with the inspiration of the Church, is an enhancement of natural, rational discernment, but not a suspension or abolition. Such a view allows for disagreement, even between the elect Prophets and Apostles (as is evident in the Scriptures), and for recognition of the limitations in the human factor.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

06-06-2005, 01:45 PM

Dearest to Christ theopesta dem,

Peace and Blessings be with you:

With all due respect to you, I believe my view of the Scriptures is perfectly Orthodox. That such a view is grounded in the writings of Origen, St Augustine, and St John Chrysostom; and that any contrary view is lacking in credible patristic tradition (as far as I know), is sufficient enough for me to affirm its Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, Origen’s allegorical approach to the Scriptures was not a reflection of his particular personalilty; the allegorical approach was a reflection of the line of thought established by and predominant at the school of Alexandria, which the Coptic Orthodox Church represents till this day – you will find such interpretation in the works of other great Alexandrian figures such as St Clement, and the great St Cyril.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

06-06-2005, 02:46 PM

Dearest to Christ leandros

Peace and blessings be with you:

Let me take you out of your wonder, as I am the original writer of my former post, which I had also posted in OC.net in the past. My reply is not the outcome of laziness.

I have sinned, forgive me.

As for the monophysite label, that you find insulting, I am not using the term according to the Arian doctrine, but according to the declaration of Coptic Pope Shenouda III, Patriarch of the See of St. Mark :
"By one Nature", we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barely, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occurred as in the case of chemical reaction. For example carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when they are combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity. Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation. Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute to the human nature, nor did the human nature, transmute to the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature.
...
Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well."

Sir, let me ask you this; since the above declaration by His Holiness is one that was essentially made by the great champion of Christology St Cyril himself, who affirmed all the above Christological precepts re-affirmed by His Holiness: a) That there was union of the two natures of Christ, without mingling, without confusion, without transmutation, and without alteration, and b) that the nature (physis) of God the Logos Incarnate is One (mia) – would you therefore have a problem with labelling St Cyril a monophysite as well? If so, then you are being neither honest nor consistent regarding this matter.

I understand the difference between the word 'mono' and the word 'mia': While the word mono implies that Christ's nature is singular both of its origin and of His realization, the word mia implies that Christ's nature while being dual of its origin, it ends up single as of His realization.

I’m glad you understand the difference. It is one analogous to the distinctive implications between the Hebrew words for “One”: yachid and echad; for whilst the former is applied in a sense of strict singularity, the latter is applied in a composite sense with regards to compound unities. I will take it therefore, that in understanding the fallacy and dishonesty in the monophysite title, that you will discontinue its usage, and we can continue this dialogue. Thank you in advance.

The difference between us is that we, Chalcedonains, declare in Christ a hypostatical union of human nature and Divine nature, in the context of unification of created and non-created natures. The end result of this unification is that Christ's nature is singular double. It is singular because it's a unification that hypostatically is expressed by ONE person, and it's double because created human nature and uncreated divine nature has nothing in common and they can not mixed in any way and they remain TWO.

On the other hand you, non-Chalcedonians, declare that in Christ "The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to Oneness of Nature"

Hmm if this is another pre-prepared article, I think it needs to be edited and revised. You start off by implicitly presenting the Chalcedonian position (as you have stated it), as if it is in contradiction to the non-Chalcedonian position (as you have stated it). This you do, when you employ the clause “The differences between us is that we….” in order to introduce the Chalcedonian position, followed by the clause “On the other hand….” To introduce your conception of the non-Chalcedonian position.

Let me confirm for you, that we non-Chalcedonians would have absolutely no problem with the Chalcedonian position as you have presented it, nor would we have a problem affirming it in the language you have employed. However, we would have a problem affirming it in exclusion to certain qualifications that need to be made.

You claim that Christ’s nature is a singular double – in other words a composite unity – and this is exactly the miaphysite position. You then go on to explain that according to the Chalcedonian conception, the “singular” aspect of, i.e. the "Oneness" aspect of Christ’s nature, is according to the fact that the hypostatic union is “expressed by one person”. Though one of the emphases made by the Cyrillian formula concerning “The One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate” is indeed that His unity is expressed through one person, it is not the only emphasis.

Following St Cyril of Alexandria, St Severus of Antioch adopted the phrase of “The One Nature of God The Logos Incarnate”, and explained that the term physis in this context is not being employed in its essentialistic use (such that it is synonymous to ousia), as it is when it is being employed in reference to the human or divine nature of Christ. Rather, it is used in a sense to denote “a concrete particular in which the ousia is individuated” and as such is synonymous to the term hypostasis.

This is the result of inability to comprehend how is it possible to have one person to give hypostasis to two different natures at once. This is a logical argument that presupposes that the attributes of a personhood results as the outcome of his nature.

It seems you are setting up quite a confused straw man here. Our affirmation of the One Nature of Christ is not the result of some warped logic which entails that to affirm two natures per se entails the affirmation of two persons. The physis in mia physis, as I explained above, is employed in a differing context to when it is employed with reference to the divine and human essences (ousia/physis). The mia physis expression, according to the context in which the term physis is to be understood (in a sense such that it is synonymous to hypostasis) has three emphases according to St Severus of Antioch as stated by Fr. V.C Samuel in his article One Incarnate Nature of God the Word; one of which is: that “In becoming Incarnate, He individuated manhood in union with Himself and made it His very own”(pg. 87, Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?).

It thus has implications regarding the nature of the hypostatic union itself. Therefore, it is after the union that it is essential to affirm the ultimate mia physis in order to emphasise that the One hypostasis of the Word before the union, did not become two hypostasis at the incarnation, but rather the humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word, such that Christ was mia physis according to the state of His individual existence. The consequence of this is that the two essences which constitute His mia physis according to the hypostatic union, are inseparable, precisely because the existence of one physis (ousia) - the human, is dependent on such a union in the first place, due to its lacking hypostatic qualities in and of itself.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

06-06-2005, 02:54 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings be with you:

But how the Church is guided is another matter since as the Body of Christ the Holy Spirit works through its members overcoming all that is weak & even fallen.

I don’t think however, that the Holy Spirit imposes itself upon anyone or “part” of The Church to the extent that it restricts their free will. If a certain See possesses an unholy grudge against another see, or a certain figure for example has a personal agenda - wishing to exalt his particular authority and position, and thus consequently an unwarranted Church Council is enacted purely in the name of political and personal gain; why should we expect The Holy Spirit to prevent this? In my opinion, God merely made sure that regardless of the grave human error i.e. the abuse of the human aspect in “human-divine synergy” that would consequently ensue, that The Church would still indeed maintain His doctrinal truth, in one form or another. This I believe is what happened at the Council of Chalcedon.

So the Council of Chalcedon is an expression of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church in the fullness of Life & Truth.

Says who however? My Church as does your Church, claims to be the legitimate One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church. It is your subjective position that the Holy Spirit motivated the events at Chalcedon such that it was a legitimate Ecumenical Council, and it is our subjective position that the Holy Spirit motivated our rejection of Chalcedon such that it was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council, regardless of whether it affirmed Orthodox doctrine according to the subjective intention of those who were responsible for it. How else can we determine who really got it right, apart from a retrospective analysis of historical facts?

Nothing can 'prove' that Christ's Life as offered within the Church through Her life- including Her Councils- is True except for this Life itself which is shared with all.

I’m sure the Roman Catholic can assert the same thing with regards to her councils which she considers ecumenically authoritative, including those which we as Orthodox reject. Try and empathize with the non-Chalcedonian position for a second, by regarding your own position towards the Roman Catholic councils which you do not consider legitimate. In a dialogue of this sort, one cannot just narrow mindedly assert arguments based upon the presupposed legitimacy of certain councils which the other party does not accept. There needs to be some objectivity; a standard by which we can determine the Ecumenicity of a council, and hence the validity of one party's claims concerning a particular council over and against the claims of another.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

06-06-2005, 03:39 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

would you please complete the coptic christology dogma by answering to the question: why did Jesus died as a human being?

Thank you.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-06-2005, 04:43 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Thank you for your kind & thought-provoking posts. This gets us to consider our Faith more closely.

The Holy Spirit does not impose itself upon anyone against their free will. And for us this is precisely why we see the Council of Chalcedon as being 'Ecumenical'. As it says in the Acts of the Holy Apostles when the Apostles met in council at Jerusalem "it pleased the Holy Spirit & us." The Council of Chalcedon for us perfectly expresses the essence of the Christian faith based on the hope of salvation in Christ. If it did not express this in Orthodox fashion we could not say that this Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit or a real council- it certainly would never be considered Ecumenical, ie applying to the Universal Church concerning a matter central to Her doctrine. So it is from this that we say that Chalcedon was not a matter of unholy grudges or personal agendas.
You further wrote:

why should we expect The Holy Spirit to prevent this? In my opinion, God merely made sure that regardless of the grave human error i.e. the abuse of the human aspect in “human-divine synergy” that would consequently ensue, that The Church would still indeed maintain His doctrinal truth, in one form or another. This I believe is what happened at the Council of Chalcedon.

I notice that a number of times you have expressed things in this fashion as if the Orthodox Church could maintain its "doctrinal truth" while Chalcedon was the result of "grave human error." If Chalcedon had been judged later on by the mind of the Church to have been false then perhaps we could say such a thing. But the fact that we have proclaimed this council to be Ecumenical and indeed a marker of the Faith means that it is central to our Faith. In the Church there is an identical conformity between the Faith and the expression of Her true councils. Of course the Church must discern whether such councils were indeed true expression of the Faith- a council is not true just because it took place. It must conform to the Faith. In the case of Chalcedon though this is exactly what happened.

That Chalcedon is a perfect expression of the Orthodox Faith & thus central to it is not subjective. For that matter how can you maintain that your rejection of Chalcedon is subjective? By Orthodox standards you should maintain that you are defending a true and objective standard of the Faith.

This indeed is the criterion of the Faith- not "a retrospective analysis of historical facts"; for the interpretation of even those "facts" ultimately depends on our perspective- not in a subjective sense but as conforming to Orthodox vision.

The Roman Catholics should indeed assert a conformity between Faith & her councils just as you should about your own church. This is not "narrowminded" but simply the attempt at catholicity (by its Orthodox interpretation about the Church expressing the fullness of Faith).

Of course this all gets down to the ultimate criterion of the Faith. Discussing the theological vision that divides us is very important. But we need to understand that much of what we say does not 'prove' the Faith nor did the Holy Fathers intend their formulations in this way. Rather what they and the Councils convey is an expression of and witness to the Faith- not a 'proof' of it. So ultimately the criterion of the Faith comes down to whether what is being expressed conforms to an Orthodox understanding of salvation as given by Christ to His Church. When it comes to Chalcedon it is for this reason that we defend it so warmly. Not just in outward expression in words. Rather our words are a witness to the experience of Orthodox salvation in Christ through His Church which Chalcedon expresses and witnesses to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Theopesta

06-06-2005, 06:00 PM

eulogete kure leandros in your post 54
we belive with the:
a hypostatical union of human nature and Divine nature, in the context of unification of created and non-created natures. The end result of this unification is that Christ's nature is singular double. It is singular because it's a unification that hypostatically is expressed by ONE person, and it's double because}} created human nature and uncreated divine nature has nothing in common and they can not mixed in any way and they remain TWO.
if you complete the pope book you will fnd that.
xairete}}

leandros

06-06-2005, 07:49 PM

Dear Abdullah,

I have asked the question: whether Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father, or it originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father ?

I think that if you provide an answer to this question, then we will realise the significance of our disagreement.

You said:
"The consequence of this is that the two essences which constitute His mia physis according to the hypostatic union, are inseparable, precisely because the existence of one physis (ousia) - the human, is dependent on such a union in the first place, due to its lacking hypostatic qualities in and of itself."

This non-Chalcedonian doctrine is absolutely non acceptable by Orthodox Chalcedonians.

We, Chalcedonias, do not accept that to have a divine nature is a precondition for Christ as a Person to be the Son of the Father -in fact we believe the other way around, that His personal relationship of Sonship with the Father is the Cause of his Divine existence (not of a natural Sonship, for then we would have two Gods, a Father and His Son). In the same context we accept that His personal relationship of Sonship with the Father is the cause of his human existence as a Person, it is not the sideefect of having human nature.

In both cases the cause of existence for Christ as Son of the God,and as Son of the Man is the Father. Not as a natural cause that gives birth to the Son's nature, but as a cause of Personal existence. I repeat that we worship a Trinity of Persons and not a Trinity of Divine nature.

Let me use an example of the Chalcedonian doctrine by introducing it in a human analogy:

There was once a Father that had a Son in a peaceful land, of Joy and Happiness. The will of the Father was for the Son to become a General that would fight evil in a spiritual war that an army of people was giving without success in another country, even if he was to die for that noble cause. The Son accepted his Father's will and he left his Father's land to join the army and to assume the Generalship. He gave a victorious combat against the evil one and he saved human army from the slavery, but he died doing it.

Now, in this example there is ONE person that participates in two living realities, one being the Sonship and the other being the Generalship. In this context, both the Sonship and the Generalship are given hypostasis by the same person, and THERE IS NONE THAT IS LACKING HYPOSTATIC QUALITIES IN AND OF ITSELF. The Generalship is not en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of the Son, the Generalship IS HYPOSTATIC by the person who is the General.

To say that the Generalship "lacks hypostatic qualities in and of itself" and that is "dependent" from the Sonship, and that the Generalship "was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis" of the Son, is like saying that the Sonship became a General. It's an im-personalization of the General.There is no dependence of Generalship to Sonship. There is a dependence of both of them on the existence of the Person that lives them as realities.

The Generalship is a created reality which was realized as a result of an action of will, and the Sonship is uncreated in the context that it was given to the Son by his Father - because there was not a time when the Son had not own the Sonship. They are at the same time BOTH autonomous, self justified, all complete and self-hypostatical as they are manifested by ONE person that lives them ontologicaly.

I think this example makes clear why the Chalcedonian Orthodoxy is not accepting the non-Chalceconian doctrine: we find no dependence of human nature on the divine nature. Nevertheless, We find both of them to be dependent from the personal -not physical- Sonship relation of the Son with the Father.

We, Chalcedonias, declare that it is a Person that hypostasizes the human nature of Christ - it is not His Sonship. The same Person hypostatizes the Divine nature of Christ - it is not His Sonship. This person on both cases is THE SAME ONE and He is Jesus.

This is our faith (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml):
"Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."

By confessing that "...he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man ... consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood... but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ..." we emphasize that neither of Christ's natures lack of hypostatic qualities in and of itself. That they are both perfect, not depended on anything, not lacking anything, standing by themselves in perfection and completeness and having "as a peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ."

To put it in one simple sentence:
The Sonship in Christ is hypostatic by the person who is the Son, the humanship in Christ is hypostatic by the person who is the human, in both cases this Person is Jesus. (likewise the son who became general in the example above)

leandros

06-06-2005, 08:05 PM

Dear theopesta dem,

Thank you for your testimony of faith.

By reading your posts I realise that your prayers are being accepted by God.

Like you, I think also that we are praying in the same God.

I have read the book of your pope, and I shall read it again, since you ask.

I have one question to ask you: is it possible for your priest to practise holy liturgy in case there is nobody else in the church?

I asked this because I have heard that a Coptic priest can not perform liturgy just for himself and that must be at least one more person present in the church.

Thank you for your advise.

Theopesta

06-06-2005, 08:34 PM

I think what the problem if no one present in the church, and the preist pray the mass.
if I am monk not nun I will be happy to make that every day.
if the preist make the liturgy alone and continue the people one day will come as they know their is a conestant time for mass never changed,
and the preist will be honest..

Theopesta

06-06-2005, 08:46 PM

please Mr. leandros
what is the differance between the two exprestion:
{whether Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father, or it originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father ? }
I feel the two is the same but I am not a knowledagable theologian,
the book of H.H page 21:
line no. 7 from down about the hypostatic union

also, I study the hypostatic union as specifc topic in the theological institute but in arabic with greek exprestions.

Theopesta

06-06-2005, 09:46 PM

the explaintion Mr. leandros in post 58:
is the same as we study in the institute, may the diferance in language but the extract of explaintion is our faith

it is a Person that hypostasizes the human nature of Christ - it is not His Sonship. The same Person hypostatizes the Divine nature of Christ - it is not His Sonship. This person on both cases is THE SAME ONE and He is Jesus

my understand about the human nature that it has its special hypostatic qualities as all humans and it is present in the same time of the union in the womb of theotokos, Christ is complete human, this human nature become his own till now.

the humanity of christ present in the same time of union without differance in time, so we say his humanity is specialiazed to the logos in union,
his humanity not present before the union, the time of incarnation is the very same time of union.
christ take complete hypostasis of human as it is true incarnation with true effective redemption to all parts of human nature: its flesh, its soul, its mind, its heart as St. Gregory the theologian say.
the incarnated logos has 2 birth :
1- one before age eternal according to his divinity from the father (cause or begetting diety) by begetting out of time no firest and second in this begettig, it is continous eternal begeting.
2- the other birth is in the time in the incarnation according to flesh from the all purety theotokos.
the unity between the trinty is unity of ousia between 3 hypostasis.

all the above is the extract of ecumanical lessons of the coptic higher institute.
I hope to know what the differance between we and your holy orthodox people.
thanks}

Theopesta

06-06-2005, 09:53 PM

again I read carefully all your post 58 Mr. and brother leandros it is the same faith of the coptic church, I cannot find any thing differ. any thing out that will be nestorian or apolinarian

Athanasius Abdullah

06-06-2005, 10:00 PM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I have asked the question: whether Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father, or it originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father ?

To be perfectly honest with you, I fail to understand how this relates at all to the Christological issues that we are dealing with, which is why I initiall ignored it. However, if you really insist on its relevance to this discussion, I shall gladly answer it for you.

Answer: Clearly the latter…

This non-Chalcedonian doctrine is absolutely non acceptable by Orthodox Chalcedonians.

We, Chalcedonias, do not accept that to have a divine nature is a precondition for Christ as a Person to be the Son of the Father

Slow down sir...for you are obviously reading wild things into my statement which simply do not exist - with all due respect. I honestly have no idea how you managed to extract that interpretation from my statement – for it had absolutely nothing to do with the personhood of Christ in the first place; you are way off my friend. Let’s have a look at my statement once more:

I said:

"The consequence of this is that the two essences which constitute His mia physis according to the hypostatic union, are inseparable, precisely because the existence of one physis (ousia) - the human, is dependent on such a union in the first place, due to its lacking hypostatic qualities in and of itself." (bold emphasis your own)

This obviously has NOTHING to do with anything that you have taken it to mean. I am simply speaking about the non-selfsubsistence of the human nature of Christ, according to the fact that its subsistence is dependent on the hypostatic union. That is all...This is not in contradiction to Chalcedonian line of thought, for St John of Damascus himself taught this same principle when he declared that the humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word:

“The human nature according to Severus is not “hypostatic” but was rather considered along with Leontius of Byzantium and John of Damascus ‘hypostatiszd’, received to the unity of the hypostasis of The Word” (Zambolotsy, 'Christology of Severus of Antioch', page 377)

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

07-06-2005, 12:25 AM

Dear theopesta dem,

The difference in the question is in how we realize the Sonship of Christ.

If we say "the Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father", then we mean that the Sonship is the result of the natural relationship between entities of the same nature and it is a self identified realization of a relation - like in the case of human father and son.

In this context I, as a human, can not define my sonship relation with my father as a personal relationship. My sonship is a given fact which has been provided to me according to my father's will to beget me, by having a common nature with him, which is for my father an original nature and for me an inherited nature. (Of course, in humans there is a long chain of ancestors, but we will constrain our analysis in a generation). In this context I can relate with my father into whatever personal relationship I like or even in no personal relationship at all and I will always be his son. This is the case of created personhood: I have the ability to become a person as long as I inherit, from my natural sonship with my father, a natural delimitation that permits me to become a person, regardless of the existence of personal relationship with him. This naturally given -non personal- relationship with my father makes me realize the otherness in a violent/ obligatory realization of my sonship. I have to admit that I am not my father, that I am some other PERSON of the same nature that is defined by my sonship. Therefore, I can say that I posses my personhood, myself alone, but it is depended on my natural sonship with my father.

This is the case of humans and such a personhood refers to created persons, and does not stand for Christ as we will see below.

If we say, "the Divine Personhood of the Word originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father", then we mean that while we do not know anything about the natural affiliation between the Son and The Father, as long as the Divine Nature is incomprehensible and non-experience-able. nevertheless we have been informed by the Son and by the Father and by the Spirit that they hold such Uncreated Personal relationships with each other, that have been originated by the Father. Father begets the Son and emits the Spirit before time. As we know Father, Son and Spirit are Persons. They relate to each other in a personal uncreated way of life that we call Holy Trinity. This way of Life is united in the Monarchy of the Father, in the way that He is the only non-caused Person, forasmuch as the Son and the Spirit have as cause the Father.

So we end up realizing and relating with Persons, such as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without having a natural realisation of otherness. The Personhoods of the Devine Persons of the Son and of the Holy Spirit originate from Uncreated Personal relations with the Father. The only non-caused Devine Person is the Father.

The uncreated Personal way of Trinity life leave no room for natural diversification or separation or differentiation, it defines a single simple nature. We declare a 'homoousion' Trinity (having the identical nature) that is defined as such by the uncreated Personhoods of the Trinity Persons. This uncreated reality is an oxymoron/paradox because we provide a logical proposition of different Persons that are not defined by a distinguishable nature. While not having a natural way to realize the natural Otherness of the other Person, they are able to distinguish their Personal identities in a Divine way of Life.

In this context the Divine Personhood of the Word originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father.

This is of great significance in the Chalcedonian doctrine, because in this context there is no need to specify a divine natural necessity in Christ as we know Him to be Jesus, as there is no such a necessity as we know Him to be Word/Logos. We do not associate Divinity of Jesus with his divine nature, but with His Uncreated Personal relation with the Father.

As the divine nature of His is not the origin of His Divine Personhood, likewise the human nature of His is neither the origin of His human Personhood.

The Chalcedonian theology is a projection of the theology of the Ecumenical Synod A(325 ac), and of Ecumenical Synod B(381 ac) and of Ecumenical Synod C(431 ac). All these synods actually have declared this one Truth of our faith in different occasions:

COUNCIL OF NICAE A: This council declared that the word is homo-ousios with the father (having identical nature with the father). [His Personhood originates from His personal relation of Sonship with the Father, a Sonship that is in its nature incomprehensible.]

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE: This council declared the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three divine persons against the Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and Pneumatomachi, who thought that the divinity was divided into several natures. This council condemned the heresy of Macedonius by clearly defining the divinity of the Holy Ghost: He is not created like the angels no matter how high an order is attributed to such a "creature". [This synod included the Holy Spirit having the same Personhood originated from His Relation with the Father]

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS: this council condemned the heresy of Nestorius by clearly defining the Divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nestorious have said that the Personhood has its origin from the nature, so from two natures should have originated two persons. [This Council's statement was clear that Jesus does not originate his Personhood from his natural affiliations,for that Nestorius was wrong, and this resolution was in line with both Nikaia & Constantinople]

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON : This Counsil declared that, saying that Jesus has mia-physis combined from divine and human nature is wrong as long as this is another false doctrine of relating Christ's Personhood with his nature. By this council's resolution Jesus as a Person is not the result of diversification between other human natures. He is like all other humans. He can have a human nature like everybody else, and He remains the human Person that He is as the Divine Person, because human and Devine are referring to natures, but the Person that lives this distinct natures is One. We call Him Logos, or Christ, Or Jesus but he is One. He is not a split Personality, but a Single Personality that lives indecomposable into two Split realities.

Likewise First and Second and Third Council, so the Fourth Council also declared the same Truth of our Faith that Divine Personhood of the Word originates from Uncreated Personal relationship with the Father.

You see all four Councils, actually all Councils, are facing this one question, and they provide the answer in the same context: We believe and we worship and we relate in person with a Trinity of Divine Persons, while we provide no knowledge and we hold no experience on the issue of the nature of Their way of Life.

Theopesta

07-06-2005, 01:30 AM

this is the true faith on the trinity
Uncreated Personal relationships with each other

and the context:
the Divine Personhood of the Word originates from natural Sonship with the Father}
I think these words are fruits of the arianism we not say that never, and even when muslims condemen us saying: god not has a natural son.
we say to them: it is not a natural sonship as human generation, it is a spritual birth as the thougt in mind, the word in mouth, ray from light

I think the natural birth:
mean from the same ousia as continous eternal issue not according to the will of god ( I hope I give the exact correct word)
natural as it is without begining and eternal as the father
the bosom of the Father never empty from the son according to divinty.
natural as light from light.

the natural birth in human differ in:
1- the time between the presence of the father and his son
2- the father and son in humans seperated.
3- the son come with the will of the father.

at the end I can say it is natural Uncreated Personal relationship

M.C. Steenberg

07-06-2005, 10:53 AM

Concerning the council at Chalcedon:

a) It was not Ecumenically motivated – it was not fighting a real heresy, rather it was based on a shaky and weak assumption concerning the heretical leanings of one sole figure; a simple-minded, old, and confused monk (Eutyches), who was certainly no immediate or real threat to the Church - even assuming that he did indeed ascribe to the monophysite heresy (of which till this day there stands no solid evidence against him). Ecumenicity is first and foremost an ontological quality pertaining to the life of the Church; Chalcedon divided the church; it was a council of schism, as opposed to a council of unity. Our rejection of the council seems to have been more ecumenically motivated than the instigation of the council itself; we feared its compromise of the Alexandrian Orthodox Christology that was established against Nestorius and set as the standard for Orthodoxy at Ephesus 431, at a time where Nestorianism was still the only real danger to the Church. Indeed, the historical reaction to Chalcedon of the Nestorian church and Nestorius, as well as the historical context regarding the significant and growing influence of Nestorianism (which was at the time still the ONLY real threat to the church), supports our very case.

Historically, this is to take a far too facile reading of the council, of the question of what constitutes heresy and threat, and of the history surrounding the whole era from the mid-420s onward.

Firstly: To claim that Chalcedon was 'not ecumenically motivated', nor a 'council of unity', but that deference should rather be paid in this regard to Ephesus in 431, is perhaps not fully to have read the history. Comments later, that 'It did not represent a legitimate member of the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church – The Coptic Church of Alexandria', only make this more clear.

The council of Ephesus was as far from a 'council of unity' as was possible: it was divisive and contentious from the outset. The local bishop launched the formalities with a royal welcome for one party (that of Cyril) and a complete refusal even to admit the other (Nestorius). While the majority of those in attendance in the early days of the meeting were Cyrilline in support, and Nestorius' hard-and-fast supporters were relatively few, there was a large group of bishops in the 'middle ground' that were subject to often quite rigorous and often subversive lobbying from both sides. When the council finally did meet in formal session (a fortnight later than planned, after intense strife in the city), Nestorius was neither present at the opening session, which condemned him, and that session was found to be chaired by none other than Cyril, his chief opponent.

Moreover, in the arena of lack of representation, while there may have been such of the Coptic Church of Alexandria at Chalcedon, at Ephesus a whole region of local churches was absent: that of 'the East', under chief representation of John of Antioch. The council under Cyril was started, held and concluded before the eastern party (who had far further to travel to get to Ephesus) had arrived (albeit very late), despite the fact that letters had been sent stating that they were on their way. So enraged were they on arrival to find that the 'ecumenical' council had taken place without their input, that a second council was held under John, condemning that held by Cyril. When later both councils were reported to the emperor, he simply condemned both councils and all parties involved -- i.e., the whole of the church. It was only some time later, after much lobbying, that the Cyrilline council was affirmed as imperially accepted.

I do not raise these points to challenge the ecumenical status or sacred character of the synod at Ephesus, nor its various doctrinal condemnations and acclamations. But to hold it up in counterpoint to Chalcedon as an 'ecumenically minded council of unity' is simply inaccurate and misrepresentative of both.

Secondly: To state rather emphatically that Eutyches was simply an 'old, and confused monk' who was 'certainly no immediate or real threat to the Church', and that Chalcedon was thus called to 'solve' a non-problem and deal with what was a non-heresy, is to take a desperately non-patristic approach to identifying and dealing with heretical teaching. Arius was an old man at the time he came into confrontation with bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and one who until he was challenged made no attempts whatsoever at gaining a 'following' to his beliefs. Moreover, after his condemnation, he simply disappears -- his direct, personal influence is among the most minimal of any personality known in the era. Yet he sparks, in a way, a theological debate that will last two centuries and engender twenty or thirty other groups in some way or another built upon suppositions believed to be his.

That Eutyches was a threat, in terms of the potency of heretical thought, has little to nothing to do with his personality, charisma or immediate influence -- it is a matter of implication of doctrine. And sufficient groups and individuals in the middle of the fourth century saw in the doctrines attributed to him, and in their logical outgrowth, a dangerous means of interpreting the decisions of Ephesus that needed correction. Prior to the summoning of the synod at Chalcedon, Eutyches had come under attack at Constantinople and Rome, as well as various other parts of the Christian world. In addition to the purely anti-Eutychian discussion, there was also the real need for a clarification of the reading of Ephesus, which despite having eventually been given imperial authority was still read with great suspicion in Rome; and despite Cyril's attempts at reconciliation with John of Antioch in 432-3, had not actually resulted in any sense of solidarity in the eastern parts of the empire. There was no possibility of Ephesus simply being left to stand on its own.

If one wishes critically to investigate and challenge the arguments of Chalcedon (which is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thing to do: critically investigating the councils and the faith is an eminently 'patristic' endeavour), then what should be read and examined and challenged is the theology and thought of the council, not false claims of a history that sets it against the pattern of other, 'better' councils.

INXC, Matthew

Theopesta

07-06-2005, 06:25 PM

although I am weak in thoughts and mind, and my expressions very weak. father Rafial deal paitiently with me and Brother leandros very angelic and senstive in his words with me many thanks.

Dr. M.S.

what should be read and examined and challenged is the theology and thought of the council, not false claims of a history that sets it against the pattern of other, 'better' councils

I feel it is a neutral enlightement mind, thanks . in between the same people one word may use with differant meaning according to each one.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-06-2005, 07:09 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,
In your post you wrote:

Our Church’s position has always been that the free will of those at Chalcedon was abused for political and personal gain, in order to undermine the See of Alexandria rather than to promote Church unity, and as such it cannot be considered Ecumenical in the proper sense of the word...

Our rejection of the council [of Chalcedon]seems to have been more ecumenically motivated than the instigation of the council itself; we feared its compromise of the Alexandrian Orthodox Christology that was established against Nestorius and set as the standard for Orthodoxy at Ephesus 431, at a time where Nestorianism was still the only real danger to the Church.

It did not represent a legitimate member of the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church – The Coptic Church of Alexandria, nor did it consider our concerns that true Orthodox Christology was being compromised, but rather unjustly dismissed us.

Chalcedon is not a rejection of what is Alexandrian within the Church. One hears at times of Alexandrian vs Antiochian theology & spirituality. The terms 'Alexandrian' and 'Antiochian' can provide a helpful short-hand for tendencies within the Church but in reality both are usualy present to some degree & one rarely without something of the other. In this sense the Alexandrian has always been treasured by the Orthodox Church especially within Her mystical theology & monasticism. We highly venerate Sts Athanasios & Cyril of Alexandria (besides all of the other Egyptian fathers of monasticism). Now for us though Alexandria is illumined by Chalcedon & the latter anchors the Orthodox intent of the former. Put another way Sts Cyril of Alexandria & Leo Pope of Rome are not seen as representing opposing theologies even though the vocabulary they used to express themselves was different.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: I do wish that someone here having that talent could discuss the issue of whether we are both making the same theological point using different words. Sometimes this appears so and other times it doesn't. I admit that with my limited theological understanding I am not able to resolve this crucial issue. Crucial because in many Orthodox parishes the Oriental Orthodox are now accepted at times as Orthodox without chrismation. From this discussion I think we can see that the confusion is furthered because the Oriental Orthodox are also not clear on whether they see us as Orthodox (eg do they allow their people to receive communion from us?).

Theopesta

07-06-2005, 08:21 PM

Father Rafial:
when H.H. the alexandrian patriarch speak about you in his lectures he always says: our brethren the eastern orthodox make that...eg: anatheiazed origin which his thought appear from time to time.

2- the official opinions known from the hierarchs not from the young children.
3- we accept the baptism of you, and I know we will accept all sacraments after the anathema of the revenered fathers of both of us abolish from each part.
the firest and foremost thing we are youngs not suitable or knowledageble to any discussion.

Theopesta

07-06-2005, 08:27 PM

Fr Raphael

we are both making the same theological point using different words

I am young and weak but I am sure when I compare my lectures with your words it is the same meanning. and our hierarch not say any thing anti eastern orthodox. forgive me for weak expressions

Kosmas Damianides

07-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Forgive me for adding some sayings here with the hope that these will help us understand each other more.

A brother once went to Abba Moses at a Scete, asking him for a spiritually edifying word for the soul. The elder therefore said to him: "Go, stay in your cell (room) and your cell will teach you everything". (Sayings of the Desert Fathers). Abba Moses.

Çóõ÷ßá Íçóôßá êáß Ðñïóåõ÷Þ äõíáìþíïõí ôçí åóùôåñéêÞ üñáóç. - ÁââÜò Äïýëáò

"silence, fasting and prayer strengthen the internal vision". Abba Doulos

Perhaps both sides should stop and think. What is most important? The unity of the faith or the differences in expressing that same truth?

Isn't this the belief of both sides that during the hypostatic union?:

"...the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our (fallen) state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours. - Letter of Pope (St) Leo I to Flavian (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum04.htm).

Perhaps in time we will understand why during that very crucial time in Church History, we ended up cutting ourselves off from each other, when, as far as I can see, it was just different terminology and not our faith which divided us and still does now.

Ultimately words cannot describe the mysteries of God, all we can do is try. Even in our silent contemplation we are theologising more than when we are talking. The truth after all is inside us since that is where the Kingdom of Heaven also dwells. (luke 17:21)

Please pray for me,
In Peace,

Kosmas

leandros

08-06-2005, 01:42 AM

I intend to address this message to sister theopesta dem, but let me first apologize to Kosmas Damianides:

Brother Kosmas,

there is no harm done in the meeting of brothers in the spirit of good will. I am posting this message with great pain and agony, because I believe that it will clearly show that there is a great gap between the Coptic non-Chalcedonian Church and the Chalcedonian Churches (Greek-Russian-Cyprian-Bulgarian-Serbian-Romanian), and that the whole issue of separation is not based on different terminology but it is based on vital faith issues.

Dear Theopesta dem (and all mia-nature friends),

I am afraid that with this post I am going to discomfort you. Forgive me for that. In the declaration of faith of H.H. Pope Shenouda III about “THE NATURE OF CHRIST” (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/nature_of_christ-20111.pdf) I have found many non Orthodox doctrines, as far as my Greek Orthodox Church understands them to be as such. I will post only some of them that have a huge importance in the life of the Church. I will try to avoid dogmatic issues at this time.

In chapter Chaprter 7 - The One Nature and the Suffering, H.H Pope Shenouda III declares that:

“...As for the crucifixion of Christ, the Holy Bible presents us with a very beautiful verse; St. Paul the Apostle speaks to the bishops of Ephesus asking them: "... to feed the Church to God which He has purchased with His Own Blood" (Acts 20:28); \he ascribes, the Blood to God, although God is Spirit, and the Blood is that of His human nature. This expression is the most wonderful proof of the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos; what is related to the human aspect can be attributed to the Divine nature at the same time without distinction, as there is no separation between the two natures.
...
If the first aim of the Incarnation is redemption, and redemption cannot be fulfilled through the human nature alone, faith in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is an essential and undeniable matter. Redemption cannot be fulfilled if we say that the human nature alone underwent suffering, crucifixion, blood-shedding and death.
...
Turn to the Holy Bible and read what it says about God the Father, "He that spared not His Own Son but delivered Him up for us all. ) (Rom. 8:32) and also, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish..." (Jn. 3:16), and "But that He loved us, and sent His One Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ) (1 Jn. 4:10).
...
Thus, the One sacrificed by God is the Son, the Only Begotten Son, that is, the Second Hypostasis (Person) of the Holy Trinity; the Logos. The Bible did not say that He sacrificed His humanity or anything of the kind although He died on the cross with His human body, this is clear proof of the One Nature of God the Logos, and herein is the importance of this unity for the act of redemption.
...
The Bible also says in this context, "God the Father Who has delivered us from the power of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of His Dear Son, in Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Who is the Image of the Invisible God." (Col. 1:13-15).
...
When the Bible speaks about the forgiveness of sins through the Blood of Christ, it attributes this to the Son Who is the Image of the Invisible God, and to Whom is the kingdom. This is more evidence of the One Nature and the concern of the Holy Bible dealing with the matter of redemption.
...
In chapter 10 - The One Will and the One Act
...
Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both.

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps.”

I will try to comment on these excerpts. (Please forgive me if I sound rejective)

There is a capital failure by H.H. Pope Shenouda III to understand the difference between Persons and Natures. All of his analysis is based on the mia-nature Coptic doctrine. And that doctrine results in unbelievable distortions inside the Coptic church life.

He talks about the blood, and the suffering of Christ and the redemption.

He says that “the blood of Christ is ascribed to God”, because “what is related to the human aspect can be attributed to the Divine nature at the same time without distinction, as there is no separation between the two natures”. In this context, I assume, when a Christian is taking Communion, by receiving the body and blood of Christ, he receives both human and divine nature at the same time, “as there is no separation between the two natures”, as the blood is “ascribed to God”. I let you come to the justification of such a statement as an Orthodox doctrine. For me it is outrageous un-Orthodox.

Then he says that there was a need for redemption, but “Redemption cannot be fulfilled if we say that the human nature alone underwent suffering, crucifixion, blood-shedding and death” – he implies here that a divine nature was needed to suffer for that purpose. Then he continues by saying “Thus, the One sacrificed by God is the Son, the Only Begotten Son, that is, the Second Hypostasis (Person) of the Holy Trinity”… “The Bible did not say that He sacrificed His humanity or anything of the kind although He died on the cross with His human body…” … “When the Bible speaks about the forgiveness of sins through the Blood of Christ, it attributes this to the Son Who is the Image of the Invisible God … This is more evidence of the One Nature and the concern of the Holy Bible dealing with the matter of redemption”. Here, H.H Pope Shenouda III is accounting the passion of Christ to be also a passion of his Divine nature. This is a straight onslaught against every Orthodox theological doctrine. Because, we stand all of our Orthodox faith on the doctrine that the Divine nature was, is and will be forever impassible ! This statement of H.H Pope Shenouda III that the passion of the Son was experienced by both His human and His divine nature is even more outrageous than the previous one about the “blood of God” and of the “need for redemption”.

Then he says, about the will of Christ, “What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both” … “If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict.” Here, H.H Pope Shenouda III is making the statement that the Divine and the human nature have a will by their own. He ignores all Orthodox Patristic theology and anthropology, which unanimously proclaim that a nature is not able to have a will and that ONLY PERSONS CAN HAVE WILL, and he declares his doctrine of 'will originated from nature' in order to justify the mia-nature Coptic doctrine. It’s like saying that my stomach, my eye, my hand and my body have will. The Orthodox doctrine is that human nature can not have a will, only a person that gives substance/hypostasis to the body can have a will. Else, we would have been vain beings that are being ruled by their natural wills. This issue is of great importance, because Christ said “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24). If our will to follow Christ is originated from our human nature, then our Christian salvation is not an act of our Personal freedom to relate with Christ in a loving relationship, because our nature would rule our will, and our nature is unchangeable. But what is even more outrageous yet, is that H.H Pope Shenouda III declares that the will of Christ is also originated from His divine nature and from His human nature that are united in one nature in order to avoid “contradiction or conflict” and an “internal conflict”. In his context, Christ is not free as a Person to "will" as an exercise of the freedom of His Personhood, but he is efforced to "will" according to His compound nature.

These examples, and there are many others in the same line with these in every page of the Pope’s declaration, testify of two things:

The first conclusion is that there is no terminology difference between the Coptic non-Chalcedonian church and the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. The difference is in the theology. And not just a difference of the kind of schism but of the kind of heresy!

Even if we accept in good faith that these outrageous doctrines are the results of simplicity of mind, or of the adoption of symbolic analogies, or of the immaturity of intellect, we can not accept to weigh them as having the same gravity with the Ecumenical Doctrines of the Orthodox Church. Because then, the life of Church would collapse as the foundations of the Church are going to be fatally destroyed.

The second conclusion is that, the Coptic non-Chalcedonian Church, according to H.H Pope Shenouda III declaration regarding “THE NATURE OF CHRIST”, has not only misunderstood the resolution/dogmas of the Chalcedonian Council, but every resolution of all Orthodox Ecumenical Church Counsils, included the first three Councils. And I literally mean all of them. For those Orthodox Chalcedonians that find this as an overstatement, please read this declaration (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/nature_of_christ-20111.pdf) and I think that you will come to the same conclusion that I have. Because according to this declaration, Christ’s incarnation is an Incarnation of a divine nature.

Finally, with great and honest grief, I realize that the Coptic Church of today is failing to live the glorified experience of the Alexandrian Church of the past. I hope and I pray that the blessing of Christ will bring the Truth to all of us.

Dear Theopesta dem and all mia-nature Friends,

I hope that I am not misunderstood. I am not a teacher of the faith. I express personal opinions according to my Greek Orthodox Faith. I tried to avoid personal characterizations, and I have expressed my heart straightforwardly about the Coptic doctrine as it is declared by H.H Pope Shenouda III. I respect your church and her Pope. I know that you are, like myself, honest in your faith and I have no intension to proselytize you into another faith. I am convinced that the dogmatic realization is more important than the dogmatic declaration. I know that in your hearts there is a place for the Father, the Son, and for the Holy Spirit. Only God knows a Person’s heart, and I do not presume anything for anybody.

Please accept this message as a testimony of an outsider, who is trying to live your worthy lives from a distance. I pray that God have mercy on all of us.

Athanasius Abdullah

08-06-2005, 03:00 AM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and Blessings be with you:

As I do not have the time to thoroughly go through your posts right now according to the depth I desire, I can only leave some general and basic remarks, for now.

Clearly in your overzealousness to undermine His Holiness, you have forgotten your Orthodoxy. Whilst I find your understanding of metaphysics unsound, and hence your consequent reasoning confused - it is most importantly not substantiated by any Orthodox tradition. It seems you have developed your own personal and quite peculiar innovations which I have not been acquainted with before - a new heresy perhaps; though whatever it be called, it has lead to your conseuquent stray from and defiance of Orthodox tradition, especially that maintained by the Coptic Orthodox Church, which has remained faithful to the Christology of St Cyril the great.

You seek to defy mia-physite Christology, yet in doing so you defy the Champion of Christology St Cyril himself, whose miaphysite Christology was vindicated at Ephesus 431. Furthermore, it seems you have absolutely ignored my previous posts discussing miaphysite Christology, for you are continually misrepresenting it. I explained that the term is used sunonymously for hypostasis, (not as if the terms are interchangeable as such, but regarding their direct implications), yet you continue to regard our employment of it as if it is in its essentialistic sense.

I am collecting a very nice response for you replete with direct quotations from the Christological works of St Cyril and St Athanasius - these are the standard by which we will measure the absurd attempted refutations being made against His Holiness Pope Shenouda III.

I would like to see any learned Chalcedonian on this board support the things you have said; for I have read many OO and EO works regarding their respective Christological positions, and the things you are saying are completely alien to both.

Furthermore, your argument concerning the wills of Christ goes to directly undermine your sixth council, for if there is no such thing as a natural will that pertains to a nature, then your sixth council is a farce, and you have obliviously mocked its Orthodoxy. Willing can be understood in two senses, in an inclinational sense, and a rational sense. You have obviously failed to understand this distinction. However, more on this when I have time to properly deal with it.

I assure you that you will get a proper response from me in due time when certain responsibilities and duties have eased off a little as they should in the next week or so.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

08-06-2005, 03:02 AM

Dearest to Christ M.C.Steenberg and Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings be with you both:

As mentioned above, I will need some time to properly respond to the both of you. I will reply within 1-2 weeks maximum.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

08-06-2005, 10:32 AM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Please find the following document on the issue of Personhood and Being, by His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon Professor of the University of Thessaloniki and of King's College, University of London. He was also elected as the President of Academy of Athens in 2002. He is a genuine Professor of our Greek Orthodox Faith.

I hope that this document will clarify the issue on the Greek Orthodox doctrine on the subject, which I tried to present to you:

Personhood and Being, by His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon (http://www.trinitylight.net/theology/ziz_being.htm)

Let me clarify that I have no zeal to undermine, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. My responce is my personal opinion over the doctrines, as they are presented in the document that he released in English.

I will be happy to be defeated, on this issue.

You are saying that the term "nature" is used synonymously for "hypostasis" and for "physis" at the same time. I am aware of this peculiarity, and I tried to apply it to the Pope's document but the outcome was the same.

How is this double usage changes the content of the following phrase: “...As for the crucifixion of Christ, the Holy Bible presents us with a very beautiful verse; St. Paul the Apostle speaks to the bishops of Ephesus asking them: "... to feed the Church to God which He has purchased with His Own Blood" (Acts 20:28); he ascribes, the Blood to God, although God is Spirit, and the Blood is that of His human nature. This expression is the most wonderful proof of the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos; what is related to the human aspect can be attributed to the Divine nature at the same time without distinction, as there is no separation between the two natures."

Believe me Athanasius, I have tried hard to comply with the Coptic Pope's doctrine, but there is no compatibility with the Greek Orthodox doctrine, even under dual usage of the word “nature”.

I rely on your help to defeat myself, with pleasure.

Take your time, I know how time consuming it is to answer to many people on different issues at the same time. Hopefully, the monachos.net forum gives us the luxury to communicate without time restraints.

leandros

08-06-2005, 11:29 AM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Regarding the question of the sixth orthodox council's doctrine let me give you an immediate answer.

M.C. Steenberg, the moderator of monachos.net, has published the academic article "The Free Will of Christ in Maximus the Confessor" (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/maximus_freewill.shtml) in which, I think, he presents the doctrines of the sixth Orthodox Council, according to St Maximus the Confessor, in an authoritative way.

Let me present a quotation here:

" ...First, the linking of the lo/goj with the essence of a being thus inextricably links it with that being's very nature. It therefore naturally follows that Christ would have two such wills, as it was affirmed at Chalcedon that He had two distinct natures. Maximos here had a firm conciliar stance upon which to promote a dythelete understanding of Christ. It must also logically follow, given the Confessor's discussion of the universal character of the human lo/goj across all humanity, that the human will of Christ must be the same as the human will in humanity. There is one essential human nature, shared by all despite their individual tro/poi of expression, and it is in this same nature that Christ, as man, must share. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the human will actualised by Christ and that actualised in the rest of humankind:

In the Incarnate One there are two natural wills, because there are two natures (and two activities). But there is no gnomic will in Christ [...] for there is no deprivation of knowledge of the good. [8]

The importance of this concept in the Christological understanding of the Confessor cannot be overstated. Christ, as fully human, did fully possess the natural human will. Yet the uniqueness of His personal hypostasis--that of the incarnate Word by which He was also fully divine--allowed Him to overcome the human disposition (gnw/mh) toward sin. The 'deprivation of knowledge of the good,' inherent in the fallen human condition, was overcome in the person of Christ. In other words, Christ possessed the full lo/goj of human will, but not the gnw/mh that is the result of the misused and misguided tro/poj. This notion allowed such a one as Gauthier to say that Maximus was able 'to establish two complementary truths, that, for the one part, Christ possessed a human will, and that for the other part, He did not possess a peccable will'..."

leandros

08-06-2005, 12:23 PM

Dear friends,

as Athanasius Abdullah, have asked of the Orthodox doctrine of Christ's will and he has asked of "official" testimony, whether has Christ two or one will, let me submit a simple but inspired Orthodox statement on this issue by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, as it is presented in his book THE PERSON IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b23.en.the_person_in_the_orthodox_tradition.00.htm ) - without the difficult language of Councils :

"Natural will and will based on opinion

While speaking of man's independence, I think that something must also be said about Christ's independence. St. John of Damaskos speaks "about the wills and independence of our Lord Jesus Christ". It is the subject of a dogma which shows us true freedom, how the two wills in Christ work and also how the saints too, who are united with Christ, can experience true freedom.

There is a difference between 'willing' and 'how one wills'. To will is a work of nature, just as seeing is, since in all men there is willing. However, 'how one wills' is not of nature, "but of our opinion", just as how to see well or badly is also a matter of the particular opinion and freedom of each man. The "willing" is called will and "natural will", "how one wills" which is subject to the will, is called "will based on opinion".

Through His incarnation Christ assumed human nature, wholly without sin. Thus in His hypostasis the divine was united immutably, inseparably, indivisibly with human nature. Since Christ had two natures, therefore "we say that his natural wills and natural energies were two". But since the hypostasis is one, therefore "also we call one and the same both his willing and his doing". And Christ wills and acts not in a divided way but in unison; for He wills and "each form acts in communion with the other". It is one who acts, but in any case He has two natural energies and wills which do not act separately, but each single energy works in communion with the other. In any case "we call the wills and the actions natural and not hypostatic".

We have said that in each person there is the natural will and the will based on opinion. Christ had two natural wills, which worked "in communion with each other", but he did not have a will based on opinion. The will based on opinion is that of option, which is expressed after judgement, thought, dissent and decision. There was none of this in Christ. Therefore St. John of Damaskos says characteristically: "It is impossible to speak of opinion and option in Christ, if we want to speak literally". Opinion is a fruit and result of seeking and will and judgement about the unknown. After the opinion is formed, the option prefers one or the other. But Christ was not simply a man, but also God who knew everything, and therefore "he was unhesitating in thought and seeking and will and judgement, and naturally he was at home with the good, and evil was alien". Christ's will was naturally guided to doing good and to withdrawal from evil. This is why as God He never sinned, nor did He have any possibility to sin. What the human will desired did come about in the Person of Christ "not in contradiction of opinion but in identity of natures". This means that "He wished these things naturally, at the time when His divine will wished and allowed the flesh to suffer and do the same things". Thus in Christ there was not dissent, wavering, inner conflict when there was something to be done.

Christ, being God and man, naturally had "a will", but He did not have the will based on opinion, as we said before. His human will "yielded and submitted to His divine will without being moved by his own opinion, but willing those things which his divine will wanted it to will".

Each will of Christ, both the divine and the human, willed and moved independently. For in every intelligent nature there is independence. How was it possible to have intelligence and not to have independence? So Christ's soul "was independent in his willing and wanted to moved independently", "but wanted those things independently which His divine will wanted it to will". Thus the two wills in Christ differed not in opinion, but in natural power: the divine will was without beginning, accomplishing all things, therefore having power and dispassion; His human will began in time, suffered natural and blameless passions and, while naturally it was not all-powerful, still, since it had been assumed truly and naturally by God the Word, that is why He was all-powerful.

All these things indicate that since in Christ there were two natures there were also two wills. Likewise his independence, which is closely connected with his human nature, acted naturally towards the good, following the divine will."

Athanasius Abdullah

08-06-2005, 12:24 PM

1) Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

Since I have the time to make a last quick comment, I wish to emphasise something before my coming response:

You said:

Believe me Athanasius, I have tried hard to comply with the Coptic Pope's doctrine, but there is no compatibility with the Greek Orthodox doctrine, even under dual usage of the word “nature”.

I'd like you to understand and empathise with the Coptic Orthodox Church's perspective and position here. The Orthodoxy of my church is not dependent on its communion with your Church, nor on its compatibility with your doctrine as if yours is the standard by which Orthodoxy is measured.

The Coptic Orthodox Church as with all Oriental Orthodox Church's have maintained a faithful adherence to the Orthodox Christology developed by figures that both our Church's recognise and venerate; a Christology that we believe reached its sufficient peak at 433 AD.

Thus the onus is not on me to prove that our Christology is compatible with yours, rather the onus is on you to explain and justify your Church's movement away from the tradition that we represent and uphold, since it is you who adopts the later developments and innovations. St Cyril and St Athanasius are the standard, and not the Greek Orthodox Church nor His Grace John Zizioulas; by their works will our doctrines be measured, and will the validity of our expressions, formulas, and use of terms be justified. Only upon these grounds is there room for discussion. I am obviously open to reasoning and logic; these have been points that I have been stressing in my posts so far - however, regarding particular matters already concluded by Orthodox figures such as St Cyril, there is no argument - since he is supposed to be a presupposed example of Orthodoxy in this discussion.

So for example, regarding the fire-iron analogy; you tried to employ reason to negate its validity, however, it is this very analogy that was employed by St Cyril the champion of Christology, St Augustine, and others to emphasise the unity of Christ, before it was ever adopted by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III - hence I do not find that this analogy is up for debate, even though I’m perfectly capable of justifying it along the same lines St Cyril himself did - for it is set in Orthodox tradition that both you and I should appropriately presuppose as truth in this discussion. If you do not acknowledge the authority of St Cyril and St Athanasius, and feel the need to debate particular traits of their Christology’s, then we obviously have a problem; and such a problem certainly does not lie with the Coptic Orthodox Church.

I just thought I would throw in those last thoughts, to prepare the context of my coming response.

P.S. Quickly regarding the wills of Christ: your quotation of M.C.Steenbergs article contradicts what you have said:

You said:

He [H.H. Pope Shenouda] ignores all Orthodox Patristic theology and anthropology, which unanimously proclaim that a nature is not able to have a will and that ONLY PERSONS CAN HAVE WILL, and he declares his doctrine of 'will originated from nature'

Yet in direct opposition, M.C. Steenberg states:

...First, the linking of the logos with the essence of a being thus inextricably links it with that being's very nature.

and:

In the Incarnate One there are two natural wills, because there are two natures

H.H. Pope Shenouda was simply affirming the natural human will of Christ which stems from his human nature, which you attempted to refute through an argument which entails the presupposition that will is exclusively a corollary from personhood. You thus failed to make the distinction between natural (instinctive) will vs. personal (rational) will. I will elaborate on this later, engaging with both the works of Maximus the Confessor and St Severus of Antioch.

If M.C. Steenberg would like to correct me on that; if he finds that what you have said against His Holiness concerning the wills of Christ, is compatible with the principles outlined in his article, then there may be something that im missing...I hope he responds to this issue.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Theopesta

08-06-2005, 02:07 PM

dear brother jealous leandros
most our christian people her in egypt now after the 7century are simple.

H.H. always write to the most simple who are confused as we live, educated with muslims under their way of islamic thoughts in education
the muslims thougts about our christ are 1000% mixture of nestorian and arianism and with their thoughts confuse the small youth, unlearned simple people all those in egypt need to understand what the nature of christ to not reply the muslims but to understand simply

many of people (small lamps)of the alexandrian patriarch can understand and discern except by simple ways

H.H. in the theological lectures condemn all who say we take the divine nature in the eucharist we take the soma and aima of the incarnated logos the 2nd person on the holy trinity, and he repeated to us that your orthodox family for this reason in their trisagon: holy god, holy mighty one, holy the immortal

you stop at that our orthodox family complete the trisagion by:

who was born of the virgin have mercy on us
who was crusified for us have mercy on us
who rose from the dead and ascended to heavens

these contexts we intent the human nature by them not the divinity. H.H. learn us the suffering of the divine nature is a hersy and all the orthodox families refuse it. we respect him as he can speaks with each level of mind in our country.

and I respect your strong zealous feelings I hope you meet him one day as you will find a very humble elder (Geronda) monk

you have no intension to proselytize me into another faith, for simpl reason all the orthodox families spread spirit of the amour-propre and straightness in their children,
I am easly with my this sense know the orthodox in any where.

I hope If I am not give correct expressions forgive me

the pure spirits and minds and hearts not depend on the words to understand

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-06-2005, 04:01 PM

Regarding

Perhaps in time we will understand why during that very crucial time in Church History, we ended up cutting ourselves off from each other, when, as far as I can see, it was just different terminology and not our faith which divided us and still does now

The evidence of the Faith of our Church does not supprt that what divided us in the past was merely a different terminology. I am very poor in understanding beyond the basics of what theologically divided us. But for us to say that this this was just a misunderstanding is to say that our Holy Godbearing Fathers & Councils also misunderstood. It is to say that the Holy Spirit failed to guide our Church in discernment in such a crucial matter and basically we have been in some sort of delusion for these many long centuries. So I feel we should be confident that in this dispute the Orthodox Church discerned a crucial doctrinal issue that if not dealt with would be to the grave detriment of the faithful.
Having said this we can also turn to the texts themselves. Read the works for example of St Maximos on monothelitism. After reading just a few words or pages it is not possible to come to any other conclusion than that he was God-bearing in his discernment & also possessed of tremendous intelligence & insight. Also read just a few words of the non-Chalcedoninans of that time. You hardly come away thinking that here were people who misunderstood each other's intent. In fact exactly the contrary is evident.

This brings up an important question though which I again do not feel confident in answering. When you read these writings one gets the impression that they are crticising the intent of each other as much as any open proclamation. Now is this so and if so to what extent? If part of the dispute is over the perceived intent of the other side- the logic of their own position- then we can see an important distinction from the dispute for example over Arianism where the latter was an open proclamation of the Logos' createdness. In other words-To what extent was the monophysite struggle a criticism against an openly proclaimed heretical doctrine- ie Christ is One Divine nature pure & simple. Or to what extent was it a struggle against a view of Christ whose inner logic implied a theological vision we held was not a complete Orthodox vision?

So when it comes to crucial doctrinal issues we are not only talking about an open proclamation or denial of the Faith. We are also talking about how the Church discerns theological vision & intent. Although I am not completely sure of myself here I feel that it is at least partly the latter that was at play in our Church's witness.

At this point I would ask for some comments from Matthew S to guide us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

leandros

08-06-2005, 06:15 PM

Dear Athanasius,

let me say that when H.H Pope Shenouda III declares that: ”Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both.

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps” he lacks the Patristic notion of that a natural will is the energy of the nature that it is not identified with the experience/realization of this energy which originates from the Person who is the ypostasis/substance of the nature.

In an analogy, “to see” is an energy which originates from the nature (as an objective reality of natural function), but “the vision” is an experience which originates from the person (as a subjective reality of Personal realization).Likewise "ôï want" is an energy which originates from the nature, but the "choice" is an experience which originates from the person.

Of course, when H.H. Pope Shenouda III says that “What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature...” he is referring to the natures and not to hypostasies (as I know for sure he never accepts two hypostasies). So he is unaware of the fact that the natural will is an energy that has not the power to Choose. Following this line, he concludes that by having two natural "will", Christ would have been in internal conflict, because the Pope interprets the two different natural wills as two different choices.

So, for me it becomes clear that the natural will that H.H the Pope talks about is the subjective Personal realization that we call Choice. In this context, of Pope’s understanding, I gave the response that the will (as a subjective Personal realization of “Choice”) is originated ONLY THE BY PERSONHOOD, and not by nature.

The theology of St. Maximos, and of the Church, is that the human nature has functions which are common to all humans, to see, to want, to think and many other energies. These are energies of the human nature that St Maximos calls “logoi”, reasons of the beings (ëüãïé ôùí üíôùí). These energies are given by God to every human being and they are exactly the same in the commonness of the human nature that we all share. In this context, as human beings,"we see" in the same functional way, "we want" in the same functional way, "we think" in the same functional way. This common natural functionality results in a natural common objective comprehension of the realities that our nature is part of. So according to this, I can see an object, and you can also see an objext, I can have the will for something, and you can also have the will for something. This natural energy is referring to a functional ability. The functionality originates from my nature. In this context the natural will, is not a natural choice but the delimitation of the functionality of the nature that permits me "to want". As long as this functionality – energy – "to want" is absent from the nature (like in the case of a rock), this nature (the rock) lacks the power to will.

The individuality of each human being, the personhood, gives to each distinct human being the ability to realize the common objective realities, which are provided as realizations of the nature’s energies, in a subjective Personal realization. This is called by St Maximos “tropoi”, fashions of the beings (ôñüðïé). In this context we, human persons, see, want, think and in general we naturally operate in the same way as realizations of one identical human nature, but in the common conception of the realities that surrounds our nature,as they are formated from the energies of our nature, are transformed into a personally originated factuality. We call such energies of the personhood as vision, choice, thought and so forth. In this context, I see an objext according to the natural energy of my human nature – eyes, nerves, brain – as the result of energy/action of my nature, but I experience the vision of the realization of this object as a tree as energy/action of my Personhood. Likewise I have the natural will to perform an action as an energy of my nature, but I experience the choice of the realization of this action as an energy/action of my Personhood. I say: my eyes(my human nature) has seen an object and I(the person Leandros) realize that this object is a tree. I say: my body(nature) wants to embrace you, and I (the person Leandros) experience the realization of this natural energy as a choice of my personhood. Whenever I say: “I want ...”, I mean that this choice originates from my personhood. Even when the martyrs of Christian faith had the natural will to betray Christ, in order to save themselves from death, their choice was still a personal choice, for that they remain faithful to Him. The choice always originates from the person.

The elaboration of these notions of awareness of reality, in a personal fashion, led St Maximos to introduce the term of gnomi (opinion/ãíþìç) inclination. According to ‘opinion/inclination’ the person is able to freely shape a personal factuality. This factuality is not necessary a direct realization of the natural functionality that is provided by the energy of the nature and by its realization from the person, because person has a freedom to act and he is not restricted from delimitation, like the nature. For instance, I can realize the natural reality from within an illusive personal realization. According to St Maximos this is not the aftermath of a false physical functionality of my nature, neither of a false personal realization of my nature’s energy, but it is the result of the independence of my personhood from the experiential consistency with my nature (which is created by God as a perfect creation). So, in this personal self determination against my natural functionality and against my personal authenticity, I totally fail as a being. This is the definition of sin. The problem is that the personhood has so many self-determined “opinions” about its experiential consistency with its nature, which makes it very difficult to choose the right one.

St. Maximos says that Christ was a human being that had both “logoi” and “tropoi” but he did not have “gnomi”. By that, he declares that Christ had the natural physical functionality, given by God to human nature, and he had also the Personal realization of the energies of His human nature, but He did not have the lack of experience of His true Personhood, because His Personhood was originated from the will of the Father to beget the Person Son before time, this Personhood being independent from His experiential consistency with both of His divine and of His human nature, having as a single cause the Father.

Athanasius, that is enough for now. I salute you and I wait for your return.

M.C. Steenberg

09-06-2005, 01:35 PM

Dear friends,

There is so much going on in the above posts, much of it extremely interesting discussion, that it is in a sense difficult to know where to ‘step in’ to the conversation. Perhaps I can comment on a few, varied points raised in the above.

Firstly, there has been the question of traditions of scriptural interpretation. Stepping away from a dominant modern view that the words of the biblical text are infallible in their composition, details, etc., is always healthy, for such has rarely been a patristic point of view (though there are a small minority of fathers that have espoused it). Nonetheless, to divide our reading of scripture into two ‘camps’, i.e. ‘literal’ and ‘allegorical’, is often to confuse things yet further, as if the two were wholly distinct and not part of the same approach. We then tend to mis-understand the approach of certain fathers and writers in the early period especially. Origen has been mentioned by name, and the following said:

However he stressed an allegorical interpretation of scripture could harmonize accounts that would seem to contradict if taken literally.

This is to confuse allegory and its intention. Origen had no intention to harmonise difficult passages through his use of allegory; that is not the aim of his allegorical method or reading. Allegory is for him a means to reveal and explore a deeper, inner meaning of a text whose literal (i.e. textually literal) meaning is either largely un-edifying or entirely nonsensical (such as the prohibition in the laws of Moses on eating certain animals which do not in fact exist). The point is to discover the meaning, not harmonise the accounts or details.

Secondly, much has been said regarding the person of Eutyches in the Christological discussion between Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Perhaps most summarily stated was the following comment:

It cannot even be concretely proven that Eutyches - the one individual figure to whom this heresy was ever ascribed to before the events of Chalcedon - ever ascribed to this heresy - though he is condemned by both our Church's [sic] on the assumption that he did indeed ascribe to such a heresy. However, the testimony against him was as inconsistent as his own testimony. He was just a simple and confused monk, he was no theologian or scholar.

I’ve attempted, in another post, to speak to what is an extremely modern concept of ‘fair play’ indicated in such a characterisation, which is not indicative of patristic-era discussion and interaction. It is only in the modern era that it has become writ that ‘only if a person says it directly and exactly’ is it to be attributed to him or her; and it is worth recognising that if we truly wish to apply this concept backwards onto patristic history, almost none of the fathers of the Church actually say those things which we attribute to them. If word-for-word (or even strictly defined concept-for-concept) definition is what is require to be truly the source of an insight or vision, then Athanasius certainly cannot be called a promulgator of authentic Trinitarianism, Cyril cannot authentically be attributed a full conception of the communication of properties (idioms) in Christ, etc.

In the ancient world, and certainly in the patristic context of the early Church, what one says is always set into the scope of what others read as the possibilities for interpretation implicit those statements; and the content of those unstated implications are seen in such a tradition as attributable to the source on the basis of whom those implications were discovered. To dismiss Eutyches as ‘just a simple and confused monk’ is to fail to appreciate this sense if influence and implication in the early Christian world. So he may well have been; that is not the point. The matter at stake is whether the thought attributed to him by those around him gave rise to issues of theological concern, which they most certainly did. Questions over reading and interpreting the council of Ephesus were rife. The ‘formula of reunion’ between Cyril and John of Antioch in 433 did little to quell the divisive currents of differing interpretation. When Eutyches, however simple and uneducated he may have been, suggested (perhaps in ignorance, we do not know) that the two natures before the union were two, but after the one (the human) had been subsumed into and divinised by the other (the divine) such that there was only one, those around him saw there the spark of an Ephesian reading they could not support. Locals councils were held, texts sent from the West. That Chalcedon was eventually called was not because an invented non-heresy was coming under massive imperial over-reaction, but because it showed that the various strains of interpretation of Ephesus required some sort of conciliar consideration so that the church could speak with one voice and not use the proceedings of an individual council to give rise to Christologies at war with one another.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

11-06-2005, 04:59 PM

Thus the onus is not on me to prove that our Christology is compatible with yours, rather the onus is on you to explain and justify your Church's movement away from the tradition that we represent and uphold, since it is you who adopts the later developments and innovations.

Actually, this forum will not be used for this kind of discussion at all, so there is no onus on anyone to do anything of the sort.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

11-06-2005, 07:09 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings be with you:

Actually, this forum will not be used for this kind of discussion at all, so there is no onus on anyone to do anything of the sort.

Forgive me for my seemingly harsh language; It's just that I’ve been in so many discussions with my Eastern Orthodox brethren in which they presuppose themselves the standard of Orthodoxy by which the Oriental Orthodox Church’s Orthodoxy is to be measured. What I was simply saying to leandros (though I could have been a bit more diplomatic) is that our (OO) Christology has not changed nor diverged from the Christology which was universally considered Orthodox by 433. Chalcedonian Christology came later, thus logic dictates that if the onus is on anyone to prove anything, it is on those who accepted the later Christology to prove its continuity, conformity, and compatibility with the earlier established Orthodox Christology.

I wasn’t issuing a challenge as such, just trying to make a point...so I do sincerely apologise if I came across the wrong way.

While im writing a response to you in the little time I have at the moment, I think I will at least deal with the peripheral and seemingly irrelevant issue of this whole discussion (re: allegorical approach to the scriptures) just to get it out of the way, and I’ll deal with the Christological issues next week as I said, when I have more time to properly sit down and reference of my post properly with a proper appeal to authority.

However he stressed an allegorical interpretation of scripture could harmonize accounts that would seem to contradict if taken literally.

This is to confuse allegory and its intention. Origen had no intention to harmonise difficult passages through his use of allegory; that is not the aim of his allegorical method or reading.

It may not have been the primary aim of the Allegorical method, but this was not my point in any event. What I did mean however, was that the allegorican approach was considered the corollary method to employ when confronted with passages that are simply unreconcilable at a literal-historical level (or where attempted reconciliations were simply far-fetched or incredible). As Professor John McManners of Oxford university states:

“At times [Origen and Augustine] took the sophisticated form of explaining contradictions between the biblical texts at the literal, historical level as being deliberately placed there by the divine author to teach the point that a deeper meaning lies beyond the literal sense” [bold emphasis mine](The Oxford History of Christianity, 1990, page 35)

Hence, when dealing with the apparent chronological contradiction relating to the incident of the cleansing of the temple (mentioned at the beginning of Christ's ministry in Jn 2:14-22, whilst the event is placed during the last week of Christ's life in Mt. 21:12-13 and Mk. 11:16) Origen would declares St John's account of the incident a “spiritual” rather than a literal historical one – a symbolic narrative about the need for Christ's followers to put away wickedness from their midst and to stop exploiting those who are senseless like oxen and sheep or empty and unstable like doves (Origen’s commentary on the Gospel according to St John). Tatians approach in contrast was to combine the three Gospel accounts of the temple cleansing incident into one coherent narrative, whilst other harmonists simply insist the Temple was cleansed twice.

For more information regarding the allegorical approach as employed by Origen, I refer you to the work of Coptic Orthodox priest and Origen-scholar Father Tadros Malaty:

The School of Alexandria: Origen (Book 2, Chapter 3: Origen and The Holy Scriptures -

[Link] (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex2/chapter03.html)

And concerning the allegorical approach as employed by pre-Origen Alexandrians:

The School of Alexandria: Before Origen (Book 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 - The Allegorical Interpretation of the Scriptures):

[Link] (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter3.html)

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

11-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Regarding the approaches to scriptural interpretation employed in the fourth- and fifth-century Christological discussions, and in particular Origen’s usage of allegory:

Origen would declares St John's account of the incident a “spiritual” rather than a literal historical one – a symbolic narrative […]. Tatians approach in contrast was to combine the three Gospel accounts of the temple cleansing incident into one coherent narrative, whilst other harmonists simply insist the Temple was cleansed twice.

Indeed, this was my point precisely in an earlier post. The complete quotation of what I said there is:

Origen had no intention to harmonise difficult passages through his use of allegory; that is not the aim of his allegorical method or reading. Allegory is for him a means to reveal and explore a deeper, inner meaning of a text whose literal (i.e. textually literal) meaning is either largely un-edifying or entirely nonsensical (such as the prohibition in the laws of Moses on eating certain animals which do not in fact exist). The point is to discover the meaning, not harmonise the accounts or details.

Indeed, the very well-known idea in Origen, that there are divinely-inspired ‘stumbling blocks’ in scripture, that is, passages which are intentionally designed not to make literal sense, is part-and-parcel with Origen’s belief that allegory is not a means of harmonising the scriptures. It is such non-harmonisable passages that reveal the fact that scripture is not in fact meant to be harmonised in such a manner, as if it were merely a literal source-book or collection of narrative data. For Origen, there is a sense in which the scripture is the ‘written incarnation’ of the Logos, in which it conveys immediate divine truth and meaning, but this only through a combination of what Origen calls the ‘physical’ reading (i.e. textually literal) with the ‘spiritual’ (i.e. allegorical), to reveal the deeper meaning contained therein.

It is probably worth noting that the classical scholarly distinction between ‘The Allegorical Method’ as a peculiarly ‘Alexandrine’ tradition, and ‘The Literal Method’ as ‘Antiochene’, is an abhorrently false distinction and misreading of the fathers. On all sides both allegory and textual literalism was important and employed as such. Matters of emphasis seem always to translate through history into ‘schools’ of hard-and-fast adherence.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

11-06-2005, 07:53 PM

In a previous post, Mr Athanasius Abdullah wrote:

What I was simply saying to leandros (though I could have been a bit more diplomatic) is that our (OO) Christology has not changed nor diverged from the Christology which was universally considered Orthodox by 433. Chalcedonian Christology came later, thus logic dictates that if the onus is on anyone to prove anything, it is on those who accepted the later Christology to prove its continuity, conformity, and compatibility with the earlier established Orthodox Christology. I wasn’t issuing a challenge as such, just trying to make a point.

Very nice… the point is better made objectively.

And since it is now being made more objectively, I and others can respond to it as such. Claims (by Oriental Orthodox, Chalcedonian Orthodox or others) that their faith maintained in the twenty-first century ‘has not changed or diverged’ from that which was ‘universally considered Orthodox’ by a given point in early Church history, is always to make an error on two fronts.

Firstly, it assumes that ‘Orthodoxy’ as the living embodiment of Christian truth is ‘unchanging’, this latter term defined as static or unbending. But this has never been the tradition of Orthodoxy which, especially in the patristic era, is an engaged, creative life of active approach to the mysteries of the Trinity. It is inherently consistent, in that it is the living exploration of a truth that is Truth, Christ, an unchanging personal reality; but is inherently and always dynamic, inasmuch as it is the living exploration and coming-into-union with Christ who is infinite and always transcends our approach. Orthodoxy is not stagnant in its professions: they are refined over time as articulation of the Church’s mysteries grows through the fruit of continued experience and reflection. They are expressions of the same realities, explored always from the lens of living experience. There is ‘change’, inasmuch as change is part-and-parcel of growth.

Secondly, and perhaps more profoundly, such claims are usually grounded on spurious readings of history. The present context is a good example. That there was a Christology ‘universally considered Orthodox by 433’ is simply untrue. It can be legitimised by not a whit of historical evidence. That which would rightly prevail in the end (which I would argue to be Cyril’s) was eminently not universal: even many of those inclined to agree with him on general principles over and against Nestorius’ Christology, disputed with him over his precise manner of conception and expression. When Ephesus concluded in 431, all its proceedings were nullified by the imperial court. When imperial favour eventually sided with Cyril, the whole body of churches in the East refuted the decision and refused to accept the council. When Cyril and John’s attempt at reconciliation came in 433, supporters of the Cyril of Ephesus rejected the Cyril of the ‘formula’. Churches in the East, formally under John of Antioch’s pen in that formula of reunion, rejected it from their side as well. Cyril’s writings after 433 began to focus further on exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which revealed to some in the East (e.g. Theodoret) that what they thought had been achieved in 433 had, in fact, not. Western legates representing Rome felt dissatisfied with both views: the letter of Leo to Flavian rejects the expression of Cyril as much as it does that of Nestorius.

Orthodoxy is a faith of experience, relegated to words in conciliar and theological documents, because words are the means by which such experience of God is mediated to others. But words engender conceptual schemas of varying accuracy in relation to the experience. Orthodoxy is a complex of such experience engendering words of articulation—it is not a uniform, static receipt-acceptance-and-regurgitation of a set of doctrine passed along from one glorious age to another. The moment we assume that we are completely ‘saying what has always been said universally, as it has always been said universally’, we forget how to be Orthodox.

INXC, Matthew

Theopesta

21-06-2005, 06:31 PM

while the theologians engaged in their theological discussions, behind them the simples walk in very weak slow steps to the heaven

the true theologian is the one who truly pray
and the one who truly recognizes the word of prayers is the true theologian

Kosmas Damianides

21-06-2005, 09:00 PM

Interpretation of Christological Agreements
Friday, December 24, 2004
Written by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy
We should explain to our peoples that both families of Churches have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith.

They have struggled together side by side to defend the Orthodox faith against the heretical teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches.

Despite the misunderstandings and political influences which caused the condemnations of the past, they are able now to continue together defending and witnessing the Orthodox faith.

They have jointly confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself the eternal only begotten Son of the Father who became man for us and for our salvation and was born from the blessed virgin St. Mary in the fullness of time. Thus the Word of God (the Logos) has two births, and that is why the blessed Virgin is called "Theotokos". The two families have also confessed together that the eternal Son of God had united to His Divine nature, the perfect human nature which He took from Saint Mary. The union is confessed to be according to nature in His one simple person. That is why the union is a hypostatic union.

The two families have also always confessed that the union of the natures is without mingling, without change, without confusion. The natures, i.e. the divinity and humanity, out of which the incarnate Word of God was composed, continued to exist in the union. Those who spoke of the two inseparable natures in Christ are expressing the continuity of their existence without change, and those who spoke about one incarnate nature are expressing the state of their existence, since oneness is the normal expression of any union even when there is no mingling, change or confusion.

Both families have always confessed together that our Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos is consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity and consubstantial with us according to His humanity, but without sin.

Both families agreed together that the Logos incarnate is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ. All the properties and functions of the Divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, are inseparably and unconfusedly united with the human nature with all its properties and functions including natural will and natural energy.

When we come to the issue of the four later councils of the Orthodox: How can we see it together, away from condemnations of the past against the fathers and councils of the Oriental Orthodox?

We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.

The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conducted in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism. Today in the Nestorian controversy there is a severe attack against that council, and many Western theologians are trying to eliminate its teaching and cancel its decisions against the Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox are presently defending those decisions perhaps more than some of the Orthodox.

When we go back to the situation at the time of Saint Cyril of Alexandria after the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) and after the reconciliation with John of Antioch, we can notice that the Nestorians in the East were trying to bring Nestorianism back by propagating the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Saint Cyril was severely offended by those events and he wrote several letters warning from the increasing danger encountered in this movement. He wrote to Bishop Acacius of Melitine (letter no. 69), to the clerics and to Lampon the priest (letter 70) and to Emperor Theodosius (letter 71) against the teachings and books of both Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. But in order to avoid a new storm in the church after the storm caused by the condemnation of Nesotrius, Saint Cyril was not in a position to act in anathematizing Theodore of Mopsuestia and his books, the thing which was successfully done in the Second Council of Constantinople (533). We have to praise the Lord for this great achievement.

We quote from the letter of Saint Cyril to the Emperor Theodosius: “There was a certain Theodore and before him Diodore, the bishop, the latter of Tarsus, the former of Mopsuestia. These were the fathers of the blasphemy of Nestorius. In books which they composed they made use of a crude madness agianst Christ, the Savior of us all, because they did not understand His mystery. Therefore, Nestorius desired to introduce their teachings into our midst and he was deposed by God. However, while some bishops of the East anathematized his teachings, in another way they now introduce these very teachings again when they admire the teachings which are Theodore’s and say that he thought correctly and in agreement with our Fathers. I mean, Athanasius, Gregory and Basil. But they are lying against holy men. Whatever they wrote, they are the opposite to the wicked opinions of Theodore and Nestorius. Therefore, since I have learned that they may bring certain matters concerning these men even to your pious ears, I ask that you preserve your souls entirely intact and clean of the impieties of Theodore and Diodore. As I said above just now, Nestorius stated the teachings which are those of these men, and for this he was condemned as impious by the general council assembled at Ephesus according to the will of God. Since they pretend that they confess the creed which was set forth in the great and ancient synod at Nicaea, but distort its meaning by a false interpretation, the orthodox archimandrites of the East have asked that I explain the meaning of the creed and it has been interpreted (in Letter 55)”.

It is worthy to note that Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria came into office when the situation in the East was extremely offending to the successor of Saint Cyril. Any claim about the Eutychian tendency of this great Patriarch is not true, since he himself said at the Council of Chalcedon that if Eutyches is not truly orthodox he is ready to accept his condemnation, the matter which his successor Timothy (Aelurus) of Alexandria has accomplished in the Third Council of Ephesus (475) in which five hundred bishops were present and where Eutychian teachings were anathematized, the same thing which was done during the Council of Chalcedon, and could have been done by Pope Dioscorus, if he was permitted to continue his duties during that council. The lack of condemnation of the writings of Theodorete of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa against the teachings of Saint Cyril, was later performed in the second Council of Constantinople (553).

It became a misnomer used against the followers of Pope Dioscorus that they are monophysites. On the contrary they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term “Mia Physis” denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term “Monophysites”. Perhaps the correct nomination should have been the “Cyrillian” or the “Miaphysites” instead of the “Monophysites”. For example when we say monogenis we mean that there is a single and unique Son of God Who is consubstantial with the Father. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine- human nature.

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person. It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.

His Eminence is the Coptic Orthodox Metropolitan of Damiette and a known theological and ecumenical scholar around the world.

I found this on another Orthodox Group (MSN). I found it was very interesting.

Mina Monir

22-06-2005, 12:01 AM

thanks too much Father Rafael for your fruitful previous contribution and I hope Leandros would read this agreement explanation to recognize the truth , and how the terminology of miaphysitism is not eutichian as he expressed . pray for us father .

Note : Bishop Bishoy who wrote the previous agreement has a very good site includes every needed document in ecumeniacal dialogues and lectures : www.metroplit-bishoy.org (http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org)
and as the recommendation of explaining that for people is achieved in egypt , I hope it would be explained for our brothers in Athos to have a real steps on unity ... and I hope leandros updates his readings to reach these agreements , because we do not want back steps ... we want forward steps . thanks and gbu all

yours in Christ ,
Mina.

Mina Monir

22-06-2005, 12:05 AM

sorry , I meant Kosmas demianides to thank too for his previous contribution ,

Mina Monir

22-06-2005, 12:21 AM

dear members , and especially leandros

this is a very important research represents what was the story ... because i believe it is political more than christological , we both families have the same miaphysis cyrillian terminology as the 7th point in the agreement mentioned . I hope we can read in a better and accurate way to recognize were is the problem , not only accusing each other with very old and non sense accusations .

and I hope leandros after you recognize what miaphysis means , send a letter to describe it , to show how the book of HH pope Shenouda described this terminology in irs clear cyrillian way. remembering that cyril was the pope of alexandriaa as athanasius

leandros

22-06-2005, 02:18 AM

Dear Mina Monir,

I will follow your advise and I will study the provided documents.

As I already said in my posts, it is my wish to be refuted in my understanding over Coptic doctrine. You are welcome, for proving me wrong. I will owe you, the peace of my mind and of my heart, in case my objections will be defeated.

Thank you.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-06-2005, 04:44 PM

Today is the feast day of St Cyril of Alexandria.

Troparion of St Cyril of Alexandria Tone 1
With all reverence let us praise the light of the world,/ the great orator and champion of the Mother of God;/ for by his fiery teachings he burned the heresy of Nestorius./ Wherefore let us cry to him:/ O divine Cyril, intercede with Christ/ to strengthen the Orthodox faith.

June 9 † St Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria (444)
"St Cyril was... from Alexandria, born about the year 376, the nephew of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who also instructed the Saint in his youth. Having first spent much time with the monks of Nitria, he later became the successor to his uncle's throne in 412. In 429, when Cyril heard tidings of the teachings of the new Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, he began attempting through private letters to bring Nestorius to renounce his heretical teachings about the Incarnation; and when the heresiarch did not repent, Saint Cyril, together with Pope Celestine of Rome, led the Orthodox opposition to his error. Saint Cyril presided over the Third Ecumenical Council of the 200 holy Fathers in the year 431, who gathered in Ephesus under Saint Theodosius the Younger. At this Council, by his most wise words he put to shame and convicted the impious doctrine of Nestorius, who, although he was in town, refused to appear before Cyril. Saint Cyril, besides overthrowing the error of Nestorius, has left to the Church full commentaries on the Gospels of Luke and John. Having shepherded the Church of Christ for thirty-two years, he reposed in 444." (Great Horologion)

& Today we commemorate St Cyril's repose. He is also commemorated on January 18, the date of his restoration to his see in Alexandria after he had been driven out by Nestorians.

The liturgical life & hymns of the Church most faithfully represent the piety & belief of the faithful. At the end of the day the documents of the latest theological committee may reflect the thoughts of only a few but the worship of the Church endures & is a truthful reflection of our belief. So the above Tropar & excerpt from the Lives of the Saints reflect first the high regard in which we hold St Cyril & then how we would never accept anything Nestorian.

I thank Kosmas for providing the document from H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy. This is an example to me of how close we have come in the last number of years. I speak here as a simple priest of the Orthodox Church. When I read something like what the good Metropolitan has written above I think we are seeing the same way theologically even if the language to express this may be different. Also the following words are surely of great significance:

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person. It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Of course the Metropolitan is not speaking by a synodal decision of his church but nevertheless it is surely significant that he has openly stated such a thing. Others on this forum have also stated something very similiar.

I also thank the Metropolitan for explaining about miaphysite & monophysite. I especially am helped to understand when he writes:

None of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term “Mia Physis” denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term “Monophysites”. Perhaps the correct nomination should have been the “Cyrillian” or the “Miaphysites” instead of the “Monophysites”. For example when we say monogenis we mean that there is a single and unique Son of God Who is consubstantial with the Father. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine- human nature.

To link miaphysite with "Cyrillian" helps us to understand what a united divine-human nature may mean. For us though it is still difficult to understand how Christ could have two natures in one nature. Isn't this confusing nature & hypostasis?

I think that what the Metropolitan & others of like mind have said represents a theological vision of Christ that bring us closer. This still though I think leaves us with the crucial question of whether we both maintain the same view of Christ when you use 'divine-human nature' while we say talk of "one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognised in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence (hypostasis), not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ." (From The Definition of Chalcedon).

To me at least it seems that the intention is proper & Orthodox. You want to say that Christ still has two full natures after the union. The question that needs answering however is whether this is possible if Christ has only one divine-human nature. For myself in reading the posts of the last few week it seems that some on the miaphysite side think that it is indeed problematic on our part (Nestorian) to maintain that Christ has a fully functioning human nature (free from sin of course). This is largely where the matter seperated us in the past and this is the crucial question I believe that makes the whole matter stand or fall for us now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Mina Monir

22-06-2005, 05:58 PM

thanks too much for your loving contribution Fr.Raphael . I think what your grace mentioned in your last letter was fully right , we are going in full communion very soon , maybe we can say that when Oriental Orthodox family lifted anathemas from the EO church this is the beginning , because it is obvious we have same Christology. Metropolitan Bishoy's explanation was not his individual view point , but it is the result of a chain of ecumenical meetings between the OO and EO families in the world council of churches WCC . Metropolitan Bishoy is the first rosponsible of the ecumenical relation ships in the Coptic church , and the Responsible of the meetings between the two orthodox families Official meetings which began in 1988 to write the historic Agreement .

today I'll put this agreement to give the chance for every member to be in touch with the results . AND I HOPE WE ALL READ THE 7TH POINT WITH LOUD VOICE . BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. LEANDROS , PLEASE READ IT .

thing I want to say :
it's not the end
It's just the beginning
one in Christ
Mina Monir

leandros

22-06-2005, 09:14 PM

Dear Mina Monir and Miaphysite friends,

For the last weeks or so, I was reading several book of H.H Pope Shenouda III, as they are presented in this Coptic Church site (http://www.coptnet.com/Pope.htm). I need some help to understand the Coptic theology, as it is presented by H.H Pope Shenouda III, in his book with the title “The Transfiguration and some meditations upon the feast of the Transfiguration” (http://www.coptnet.com/Pope-Books/the_transfiguration/index.htm).

I believe that Christology is of major importance for the understanding of Transfiguration (Mark 9: 2-8). I think that the Coptic theology on Transfiguration will give us a better understanding of the Coptic Christology doctrine.

I submit some of the excerpts that I find difficult to understand, for I need your help.

The Lord willed to show to his disciples that He had put on this human body, simply out of His humility, and His self abnegation.
But at that time, they did not understand His divine nature.
This glorious transfiguration was supposed to establish an equilibrium in the moral condition of the apostle s when they will see the Lord at the time of His crucifixion, in an aspect which the prophet Isaiah described saying: "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him" (Is. 53:2).
All this is added to the testimony of the Father for Him, with a voice which they heard out of the cloud which overshadowed them, saying: "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Mark 9:7), (Luke 9:35).
This testimony of the Father was heard during the baptism of repentance when the Lord humbled Himself "(Matt. 3:17), (Luke 2:23). And this testimony was also heard during the glory of the Transfiguration......
He is the beloved Son, whether in His humility or in His glory......(page 5)

This Transfiguration on the mount of Tabor, was the simplest image of His Transfiguration, in spite of its magnificence and its glory, in its
light and in the testimony of the Father from he cloud.
Another kind of the Lord's transfiguration was in His resurrection and His ascension. ….
This transfiguration in the resurrection and the ascension, happened in a manner which amazed them and made them feel His divinity, but it did not terrify them.....
But we see a frightful aspect in which the Lord appeared in the vision which the apostle saint John saw. It was said that: "His eyes (were) like a flame of fire ...... and His voice as the sound of many waters ....... out of His mouth went a sharp two edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength" (Apoc. 1: 14 16); to such a degree, that saint John, who is one of the three who saw the transfiguration on mount Tabor, could not bear this transfiguration with which the Lord appeared in the vision. Therefore he said: "I fell at His feet as dead" (Apoc. 1:17), the thing that made the Lord say to him: "Do not be afraid" ..... that is the disciple who "was leaning on Jesus bosom" (John 13: 23 25).
The last transfiguration will be in His second coming (Page 6)

In spite of having "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man....." (Philippians 2: 7 8), nevertheless sometimes it was possible for Him to be "transfigured before them" (Mark 9:2), manifesting His divinity......
This is as regards the Lord Christ, what then is it as regards us?
His Transfiguration was the firstfruits of the transfiguration of our human nature.
We say, in the Gregorian mass, about that: "You have blessed my nature in You" ...... Yes He has blessed it with the glory which He as
given to it. (page 7)

We note that each one of the three who were in glory on the mount of Transfiguration, had fasted forty days.
Probably this indicates that transfiguration is related to keeping away from material things.
It is known that the Lord Christ fasted forty days and forty nights (Matt. 4:2).
And Moses fasted fory days, when he was with God on the mountain to receive the Law from Him. "And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights" (Ex. 24:18).
And Elijah, when the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said: [Arise and eat, because the journey is too great for you". So he arose, and ate and drank; and he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights as far as Horeb, the mountain of God" (1 Kings 19: 7 8).
Moses and Elijah in their transfiguration, symbolised the whole human nature.
Likewise we note that in the parable of the ten foolish and wise virgins (Matt. 25:1), that the five wise virgins symbolised all the wise human beings in their virtuous way of life; and similarly the five foolish virgins symbolised all the human beings who do not, in their ignorance, prepare themselves for their eternal life and for meeting God.
In the same way the Lord gave us His Transfiguration with Moses and Elijah, as a symbol of the transfiguration which the Lord will grant to all human beings in eternity.(page 8)

It is not profitable to consider the feast of the Transfiguration as regards the events which happened in it, but rather as regards its symbols and meanings. (page 18)

Theopesta

23-06-2005, 03:46 AM

the Zealous ORTHODOX leandros,
1- I read in an eastern orthodox book "the holy spirit in the orthodox tradition" Paul Eudokmov
it is translated from the frinsh to arabic, I try to find an electronic document of english translation and I not find.

manly the theological arabic expretions is the same our exretions and same thoughts about the theology of trinity which we learned and know normally.

in chapter:the theology of trinity
{the trinity not due to action of the hypostatic (Personal) will or necessary in the nature.
God from the everlasting and from non beginning time is always the Father The Son the Holy spirit in an exchange internally of his love}
this my special translation to english I dont Know If the expretion is orthodox for you or not,
But I am sure the words of this book in its original language is accepted to you

this context IS what we say the natural sonship in our arabic about the personal relation between the SON and the Father in the trinity

also we say as you in the creed: {begotten not created}

I try to say the differance in language make the words used in the translation not capable to reflect all the complete meanings.

when I compare the arabic words in this translated book "the holy spirit in the orthodox tradition" with the arabic theological books and lectures of our father H.H. Pope SH. III I find not only the same meanings but the same use of the arabic words.

2- Metropolitan Bishoy is the official authorative theological BISHOP in the coptic church he is the spritual and theological disciple of H.H. in monasticism and in theological mind. so he is chosen from H.H. to represent the theologial thoughts of coptic church and also all the other oriental orthodox familly.

3- st. Athansios and st. cyril are not specfic to any church they are the father of all who want to walk in the orthodox way eastern and oriental.
the thougts of our fathers gift from god the fathe of all nations.

4- our fathers in the past had one tongue which is the greek language
so their expretion specially in Greek accepted from all.
now we are not of the same language and even in the very good translation may not in many cases give the exact meaning in the original

even the same language their is a need to learn the arts of language, to give the most suitable expretion.

5- H.H. who has 82 year now is one of the most intelligent speaker in his age
may be you need to read more to understand him from the translated book, but his original book is the most simple and concentrated book in egypt till now.

he has a book in the theology of christ also:

6- sometimes I feel the translation from the arabic origin is difficult and not give the exact meaning and vice versa

Theopesta

23-06-2005, 05:02 AM

forgive me the most Zealous ORTHODOX leandros for my meny disturbingly messages
when you read to H.H. you should put in front of your eyes:

1- what the culture, the education of th people whom he write to them his arabic books.

2- what the theological mistakes may be spread her as:
* some say we take the divinity of the christ and the holy spirit in the sacraments so the called this is: "deification of the man"

* the church has the divine nature as it is the body of christ "deification of the church".

nearly those who have these thoughts are those who read in some english books, and they spread these thoughts easly.

So, H.H. try to treat in his books and lectures the uncanonical thoughts.

e.g: st. athanasios use the word "deification" but how he use it? with what deep meaning?

if this word used in the arabic culture and language very dangerous.
the non-christian say:
1- you can deify any one simply
so, you deify Jesus
2- how the human take the divinity.

so, H.H. not want to use the arabic word as its not undersandable correctly, and is trying to express its meaning to be used to not cause confusion with the arabic word. this just an example to the media in which these books written

in our coptic church every one can speak and discuss freely, but their are a specific fathers to declare the faith because of the senstivity of the theological expretion from language to language

Dewi Poole

24-06-2005, 02:03 PM

I wish to express my thanks to everyone for the contributions to this discussion and to our miaphysite orthodox friends this has been very interesting and illuminating. I would like to ask following the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches in 1990 what has been done within both families of Churches to realise the recommendations outlined and now 15 years later move towards greater unity.

leandros

25-06-2005, 04:26 AM

Dear miaphysite friends,

First I apologize for submitting such a long message.

I accepted the recommendations of blessed sister in Christ, theopesta dem, and I have tried to study the teachings of Coptic Church from H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy as they are presented by him in his Series of Lectures on Christology and Christological Controversies. (http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/Lectures.htm)

Now, I understand that H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy is an educated, charismatic bishop of the Coptic Church and in this context I appreciate his remark that “It is very dangerous to mingle the concept of nature with the concept of person. Either not to study Christology, or to be precise”. I feel that we all should follow his wise advice.

As I have read all four of H.E’s lectures, I understood that he was presenting the theology of the Coptic Church with absolute knowledge of her dogma and spirit, while being prepared to present the differences from other Christian churches, both in terminology and in substance. He must be a fascinating speechmaker with the charisma/gift of communication. I felt a bit of sorrow that I had to read his lectures as I would rather attend his presentations.

I submit some excerpts from lecture 1 & 2, (I have not include others for space economy) for which I have great difficulty to understand, how are they comply with the pre-Chalcedonian Church doctrines, let alone post-Chalcedonian doctrines.

In lecture 2, page 5, H.E Metropolitan Bishoy says: “The person is the carrier of the nature; he is the owner of the nature. The nature of a man is composed of body and spirit, and this spirit is a rational spirit. The Logos has reason according to His divinity and has a rational human spirit. He can think as God, and He can think as man; but He is not two persons, since reason is a property of nature and the person owns it according to his nature.”

Again in lecture 2, page 6, H.E Metropolitan Bishoy says: “Now we reached the solution, but there is still a problem. Someone might say: if there is no human person, this means that He did not assume full humanity. In other words: How can we say that Jesus Christ is a perfect man while He has no human person? It is very simple to explain, although it is very dangerous not to understand. This was the mistake of Patriarch Nestorius.

If you have a cup where you can put any kind of liquid; if you put water in this cup, you say that this is a cup of water. If you put oil in the same cup, you say this is a cup of oil. The person is the carrier of the nature, so, if this nature is divine He is a God, if it is human, he is man. If this nature was divinity and humanity together, at the same time, the same person is both God and man.

The question is: Is Jesus Christ a man; if He didn’t assume a human person? I say, yes He is a man! Because He gave His person to the humanity which He assumed, so this humanity was personalized in Himself. He gave it His own person. So in Him the humanity which He assumed from Saint Mary by the Holy Spirit, formed a man in His God-person. Why? Because the person is the owner and carrier of the nature. If this owner carried divinity, he is God, if he carried humanity, he is a man. Since He owned both, divinity and humanity together, He is a God-man. Thus some theologians call Him Theanthropos ÈåÜíèñùðïò (Èåüò + Üíèñùðïò). He is both God and man at the same time. In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.”

Here H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, ascribes the divinity of Christ to His divine nature that is given to Him by His Father through His natural Sonship and his manhood to His human nature that is given to Him by His mother through His natural human sonship. In the union of natures, the human nature was lacking human “personhood” and the one (united of two) God-man nature resulted being carried just by His Divine “Personhood”.

We, non-Coptic Orthodox, believe that, Church Doctrine and Dogma from all pre-Chalcedonian Patristic and Synodic declarations present that the divinity of Christ is not a divine natural attribute, but an uncreated Personhood caused by the Father. Lord Jesus Christ is “the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages”, for this reason He is “Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made” (Nicene Creed).

Christ is God, the Second Person of Trinity because His ungenerated cause of Being is His Father, beyond time. He is not originating, as Divine Person, from “properties of nature” and “natural attributes” as an owner/joint proprietor of “The” Divine Nature. Such personhood is the created personhood of creatures which originates from their created nature.

His Sonship is non-created. If we were to use a human analogy, it would be like my father causing my generation as a person without having to undergo any change in his nature. Then my personal generation would have nothing to do with his nature/essence, because his essence should have been remaining exactly the same before and after my personal generation. Then my father’s essence would have been mine too. This is difficult to understand. It helps, if we forget the human notion of fathership. For the sake of our analogy, let’s understand father as person, not as creature. Then if we eliminate time and space, the only objective realization of the “generated” person would be the same objective realization of “generator”, thus his essence would be mine too. Because, there would have been nothing “natural” beyond the “nature” of the “generator” – as time and space is eliminated. The subjective realization would have been diversifying in two persons, the father and the begotten son, but the single “body” of the father would be realized as the same “body” of the son. The natural “functionality” of the single essence of the father would have been objectively realized by both persons as simultaneously “common” and “personal”. What makes difficult even in this stage to realize the one essence of two persons is that we can not conceive a simple essence. We always view an essence with “body”. Then, which of the two persons would have the control of the “head”, the “feet”, and the “hand” of the “body”? We must realize that in God’s case there is no body. God’s essence is bodiless, but exists as an incomprehensible incorporeal essence.

So, Christ is the Son of God, the Only-begotten of the Father…of one essence with the Father. The “of one essence” (homoousion) is not the cause of Son. Father is the cause. Father, Son and Spirit are Persons. Father is the cause for Son and for Spirit, before and beyond time, and Himself is the only uncaused Person.

Christ is God, before time, as self-existent Son/Person caused by the Father.

Natural attributes and natural properties (essence) of God are unknown. This is the faith of pre-Chalcedonians.

As the Coptic theology is authentically presented by H.E Metropolitan Bishoy, it has many substantial differences even from pre-Chalcedonian doctrines of Orthodox non-Coptic Church.

The phrase that Christ is a “divine human being” is against first, second and third ecumenical council doctrines as they are being accepted and experienced by all Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Moscow, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Cyprus. According to the theology of these Churches Christ is a perfect human being, but we can not put together “divine” and “human” along with “being” or else we fail to discriminate created and uncreated life. Christ is at the same time God and man because on “both” cases He is begotten by the Father, once in created “mode” and before time in uncreated “mode”. He, as a Person, participates in “divine being” and in “human being” not as a function of a single compound nature, but as a “mystic” realization of created and uncreated life in two natures through a single Personhood, which is Christ, Son of God.

This is why, the issue of Chalcedon is so critical for both Coptic Orthodox Church and non-Coptic Orthodox Churches. It is not an isolated issue of phrasing a “doctrine”, but it is the realization of experiential deification of Church members as a whole. These deified members of Church provide in Orthodox non-Coptic Church the expression of Truth. We both accept St Cyril’s teachings but we (you and us) hold different experiences.

The “key” for the Chalcedon issue, as is the case for every major Christian theological/dogmatic issue, stands in Council at Nicene-Constantinople (381). Every schism, every dogmatic disorder in the Church was produced, and still is, for not experiencing the Truth of Nicene Creed: “Lord Jesus Christ is Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages”.

So, in this context, the dialogue between the two churches should start from day one. Nothing should be considered justifiable. What was common and same in an experiential fashion until Chalcedon, no longer stands as common life since then. Form similarity presents the illusion of identity, but we have to live the one genuine life of another in order to achieve union.

I do not pretend to present in this message the superiority of non-Coptic Orthodox Church against the Coptic Orthodox Church. I just propose that we have to be ourselves in loving relationship between us, in order to present our truth facing the other testimony of truth.

In the last weeks, I admired the zeal of miaphysite friends in their authentic effort to face “the world” with no compromise. I hope that this dialogue will continue in the same zest. As I understand, nobody has the intention to hurt another. Living different experiences does not make us enemies.

By the way I, also, find very difficult to understand what H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy means in the following passage, can somebody please help.

(lecture 1,page 11-12) “For example when I touch a cable of copper carrying half a million volt. What I touched was a real and perfect copper cable, but it carries an electric power, therefore other attributes were added to it. Consequently, when the Lord Jesus Christ touched the leper, by His hand, the leper was cleansed. According to the law, one should not touch a leper because if anyone does he will become unclean, but when the Lord Jesus Christ Himself touched the leper, he became clean. “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;” (Col 2:9).

If the Lord Jesus Christ was not so kind to humanity, anybody who touched Him would have been killed immediately. If you touch high-tension current you are killed immediately, but out of His kindness He prevented it from happening. When Thomas touched His resurrected body, and put his hand inside His side he cried, “My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:28). Unless He was so kind to him he would have been killed immediately.”

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 07:23 AM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

To be honest, I am absolutely perplexed concerning how you managed to read the things you have read into the statements of HEMB; with all due respect, it seems like you are on another planet.

HEMB declared a very simple, basic and perfectly Orthodox principle; that the Person of Christ who possessed a divine nature, assumed a complete human nature which became intrinsic to His person (without assuming a human person) such that His One eternally begotten person thence possessed both a divine nature (which He possesses since eternity) and a created human nature. There is absolutely nothing more to it than that; HEMB does not say ANYTHING concerning the Intra-Trinitarian relationship between Father and Son, or ANYTHING concerning issues pertaining to the Trinity at all; yet somehow you have managed to read wild things in relation to these issues, into HEMB’s Christology which simply and plainly do not exist.

If you would like to critique HEMB’s Trinitarianism, please visit here: http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Trinity/GREGORY.doc Obviously in doing so, you would be critiquing the very Trinitarianism of St Grgeory of Nazianzas since this is the model that HEMB’s Trinitarian understanding is based on.

Never has the non-Chalcedonian Church ever had differences in our conception of the Trinity with the Chalcedonian Church; why you are strenuously reading Triniatrian heresies into HEMB’s Christology to prove that there is, is beyond me, let alone HOW you manage to do so.

You state:

We, non-Coptic Orthodox, believe that, Church Doctrine and Dogma from all pre-Chalcedonian Patristic and Synodic declarations present that the divinity of Christ is not a divine natural attribute, but an uncreated Personhood

The eternal Person of Christ is divine by virtue of His possession of the eternal divine essence/nature; a possession which in itself is by virtue of His eternally begotten personhood. Personhood is a principle of being and it is qualified according to the essence/nature of that being of which it is an intrinsic principle of. God is One being; His existence is Divine precisely because it is defined by the Divine essence/nature. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine precisely because they are Persons of, and hence real and intrinsic principles of This One being, and hence ultimately they possess and share The One divine essence/nature (i.e. they are consubstantial with each other).

There is nothing in “pre-Chalcedonian patristic and Synodic declerations” that would contradict anything that I have just said; nor is there anything that contradicts HEMB’s very plain and simple statement concerning the Person of Christ being the possessor of a divine and human nature which is ALL HE SAYS; this says nothing of His personal or natural relationship with the Father; so again, it remains a mystery where it is that you are reading any of the things that you are claiming.

Lord Jesus Christ is “the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages”, for this reason He is “Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made” (Nicene Creed).

Amen. And this is precisely what I have just said. By virtue of the eternal begetting of The Person of The Word from the Person of The Father within The One being, The person of The Word is consubstantial with the Father, in that He possesses the One and same self-essence as The Father by virtue of the fact that His personhood is (along with the Father) an eternally intrinsic principle of the being of God which is defined by that very divine essence/nature.

Christ is God, the Second Person of Trinity because His ungenerated cause of Being is His Father, beyond time.

Divinity is an appellation pertaining to essence/nature, and it qualifies The Persons of the Trinity according to their possession of the One and same self-divine-essence, by virtue of the fact they are eternal Persons of One and the same eternal being which is defined by The very One divine essence.

He is not originating, as Divine Person, from “properties of nature” and “natural attributes” as an owner/joint proprietor of “The” Divine Nature.

No one said anything of this sort, and although I am responding to these statements, I fail to see their relevance to HEMB’s Christological statements concerning the Person being the "posessor" or "carrier" of the nature.

So, Christ is the Son of God, the Only-begotten of the Father…of one essence with the Father. The “of one essence” (homoousion) is not the cause of Son. Father is the cause.

Well obviously sir, and HEMB makes that very clear in his works which actually have any relevance to this topic at all. If you go here: http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Trinity/engschedule.doc You will find that HEMB identifies the distinct hypostatic/personal property of The Father as “The Fountain” or “Cause”; the distinct hypostatic/personal property of The Son as “begotten”, and the distinct hypostatic/personal property of The Holy Spirit as “Proceeded”.

Nowhere in HEMB’s Triniatrianism does he suggest or even hint at the ludicrous things that you are reading into his Christology; I remain baffled.

As the Coptic theology is authentically presented by H.E Metropolitan Bishoy, it has many substantial differences even from pre-Chalcedonian doctrines of Orthodox non-Coptic Church.

I’m sorry Leandros, but clearly you are imagining things. You are reading the wildest things into HEMB’s statements, which simply and plainly do not exist. I fail to see how on earth you interpreted this doctrine of Christ’s person being begotten from The divine essence, from anything HEMB has said. HEMB clearly states that the person is the “owner” or “possessor” of the nature, and that is all - and that is perfectly Orthodox; elsewhere in those documents which DO pertain to the Trinity; He clearly establishes the fact that The Person of The Word is begotten from the Uncaused Person of the Father, and that being the "Fountain/Spring/cause" and the "Begotten" is what distinguishes Father and Son respectively, with respect to their personal/hypostatic properties.

I recommend you slow down and be more careful and cautious with what you are reading, before you get too excited and write a whole essay which is wasted on attacking a ludicrous strawman.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 08:17 AM

Furthermore,

The phrase that Christ is a “divine human being” is against first, second and third ecumenical council doctrines

Absolute nonsense. You cannot rip an expression out of context and then define it in the manner you choose. HEMB says:

He is both God and man at the same time. In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.”

HEMB is using the expression "divine human being" synonymously with "God-man" and "theonthropos"; the ONLY thing he is indicating through this expression is that Christ possessed both divinity and humanity.

There is absolutely no contradiction WHATSOEVER between HEMB's Christology and the first and second Council - that Christ is the God-man, is a fundamental and basic principle affirmed in both Councils. I really don't understand this desparation to undermine His Eminence.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Vasilis Kirikos

25-06-2005, 09:55 AM

"Abdullah"...That is an Arabic name. Why an Arabic name for a Coptic Christian? The true Egyptian or Coptic is NOT Arabic. Abdullah, I think means "friend of God" in Arabic; and is a name that is common among muslims. So how is it that you have such a name? I'm just curious; you need not answer. Please forgive me if I seem offensive. In Christ, Vasilis

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 10:12 AM

Dearest to Christ Vasilis,

Peace and blessings to you:

Abdullah is my surname, and it means "slave of God". Although I inherit the surname from my father's father who is a Muslim, such arabic names are not uncommon for Copts. Since the Arab conquest of Egypt (which was helped by the consequences of the schism at Chalcedon), Muslims have persecuted the Copts in a manner that suppressed the Coptic language and culture (for example, there was a stage when they would cut off the tongue of any Copt who spoke the Coptic language). Copts were forced to become "arabized" in a sense, and consequently incorporated over time, purely arabic qualities into our language and culture (for example, the common Muslim expression: "Insha Allah" meaning "According to God's Will" is frequently employed by Copts today). Also, our liturgies today are usually performed in a mix of Coptic and arabic; "Allah" being the name employed for God whenever the arabic is being used, and "Theos" whenever the Coptic language is being used.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

25-06-2005, 02:14 PM

You are saying that because of our rejection of Councils 4-7 that we thus do not understand Nicea?

Brother in Christ, Athanasius Abdullah,

I just say that Orthodox union is based on experience. I said before, and I repeat here that: Every schism, every dogmatic disorder in the Church was produced, and still is, for not experiencing the Truth of Nicene Creed: “Lord Jesus Christ is Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages”. There many Catholics and Protestants that accept all (7) Councils, but they experience christian faith in their own experiential mode. I do not blame anyone, and I do not prepossess anyone. The question of authenticity/ontology of “experience” is beyond agreement or logical analysis.

If I say that “God is good” and I lack the experience of His authentic “goodness”, then I am not lying but neither I am sincere. I am expressing the experience of goodness that I had experienced from other persons, which according to dialectic reasoning I attribute to God. In this context, the “same phrase” without “same experience” is expressing nothing more than identity of abstract “thinking”. Non-Coptic Orthodox expression of theology is done in “fishery” Apostolic fashion: experience “fishing” and then talk about “fishing” and "fish" and "being fisherman".

I get the feeling (and for that I asked for your help) that a person is expressing his faith according to his experience when he says that:

"If the Lord Jesus Christ was not so kind to humanity, anybody who touched Him would have been killed immediately. If you touch high-tension current you are killed immediately, but out of His kindness He prevented it from happening. When Thomas touched His resurrected body, and put his hand inside His side he cried, “My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:28). Unless He was so kind to him he would have been killed immediately.”

In the presence of experiences, same as the one above, we can unify our Churches, but in their absence unity becomes a decision and not an occurrence. The above reported experience is missing from the experiential life of non-Coptic Orthodox Church.

By saying the same creed of faith we do not "share" our living experiences in Spirit. This is why monastic society from Mount Athos does not accept the results of Joint Commission regarding unification of our Churches. The creed of our faith is not a delivered document. St Silouanos, from Athonic monk society, said once, when he was asked about ancient patristic works that existed in Athonian libraries: “Monks in monasteries of Mount Athos are not merely reading these books, but they are capable to scribe new books identical with the ancient ones, by themselves. As long as the old books are satisfactory, they do not scribe new ones. But in case existed books would have been destroyed for any reason, monks would scribe new ones”. What it is written, it is experienced.

Let me repeat, that I am not “against” Coptic Church. I am just trying to be honest. I do not refute Orthodox Coptic theology as it is expressed by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy. I just present my personal alienation from the expressed experiences which He presents. As I understand, from your response, you do the same regarding my presentation of non-Coptic Orthodox theology. What is the meaning of this “alienation” that we both “feel”?

I am not, and I will never try to define YOU. According to your life’s ontological experiential verity, “There is absolutely no contradiction WHATSOEVER between HEMB's Christology and the first and second Council - that Christ is the God-man, is a fundamental and basic principle affirmed in both Councils”. I am not trying to overturn your life - or somebody else's.

I merely present another ontological experiential verity, which am ME.

I think that this is what forum’s function is: persons facing each other, in their likeness, or in their otherness.

Please, do not assume that I am expressing “desperation to undermine His Eminence”. Being in “otherness” is not an undercut.

May God bless us, all.

Theopesta

25-06-2005, 05:10 PM

St. Athanasios: contra arian,

1- discourse iv:1

{the word is god from god...
the Word is by nature son....and from the One, a Son in nature and truth is its own word its own wisdom its power and inseparable from it}

after 2 weeks may more may I can obtain and write the original greek text which is the best expression of the true theology.

2- the word is eternal and uncreated
discourse no. 1 \ chapter iv:13
{is the father image and word eternal never having not been but being ever as the eternal radiance of a light which is eternal}
he is light from light

3- the Son is not has the same nature as creature and angles, as the word "nature" for each different in what this word carry of meaning

discourse no. 1 \ chapter xiii: 55 in the explaination of the word "better":

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 05:21 PM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

You state:

Non-Coptic Orthodox expression of theology is done in “fishery” Apostolic fashion: experience “fishing” and then talk about “fishing” and "fish" and "being fisherman"

And Coptic Orthodox expression of theology is done in Apostolic fashion; we do not just talk about God as a distant object of analysis; we experience Him everyday, and have done so from the Apostolic era by and through Holy Orthodox Church Traditions that was handed down to the Copts by St Mark the Apostle himself; our Liturgical life, our prayer and fasting life, and through the holy Sacraments of the Church – this is how the Orthodox believer (whether he/she be Eastern or Oriental Orthodox) experiences The Blessed Trinity.

By saying the same creed of faith we do not "share" our living experiences in Spirit.

Not necessarily, but who is to say that our (EO and OO) very recital of the same creed of faith is not the result of a shared living experience in the One and Same Holy Spirit? It is the Spirit that unites, and the anti-Christ that divides. At Chalcedon, I believe the Spirit of God was grieved and absent due to certain people's abuse of their free will such that it was not a matter of “one side experiencing the Spirit differently” as you seem to be suggesting, but rather it was a matter of both sides being unable to see and understand that they DID share the same living experience of the Spirit. We can go on for ages discussing whose fault it really was, but this won't achieve anything practical.

It is the very achievement of the recent agreements that your monks reject, that are evidence of our experiencing the same faith just in different language, and it is because of this that we have a duty to go beyond mere written words on a paper. The agreed statements are a gift that the Spirit has blessed us with; it is the divine call that requires our human response. To narrow-mindedly and blindly disregard them such that we remain in stalemate, is a sin in my opinion.

Allow me to paste for you the thoughts of one from another forum, regarding Ecumenical dialogue and experience of the Spirit:

In the airplane back to [..x..], I was blessed-cursed (I'm not sure yet) with an impossibility to sleep and I read thru the complete "special edition" of St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly dedicated to fr. Sergius Bulgakov. Very interresting were the articles concerning his ecumenical activity and radicalism.

In the early and mid 20-ieth century there was a long standing, dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox at St. Sergius and St. Alban's Institute (founded by both Orthodox and Anglicans for this purpose). After long years of discussing differences, they had reached a stalemate. All doctrinal issues had been dealt with, a certain, essential, doctrinal unity had been accomplished, but nothing beyond that happened. It remained but a dialogue,.. mere words,.. Reunion simply wasn't happening.

Than Fr. Sergius delivered a speach wherein he suggested a very radical proposal. "Limited, and partial intercommunion between the Anglicans and Orthodox members of the Fellowship of St. Sergius and St. Alban's.":

"Our common prayer at these conferences is a revelation - we are people who have been separated from each other for ages, praying together. We are called by God to be together. It is spiritually dangerous to continue forever in mere discussion of differences. We have been led up to the high wall of partition and we cannot continue to stare at it. Having come to this point we face a personal responsibility for the work of reunion. We must do what we can in the present historical conditions... God calls us to action here and now."

Fr. Bulgakov prophetically saw that "mere talk" would wreck havock on ecumenical activity. And indeed, the poor state that ecumenism is in today, including the interOrthodox dialogue's impasse is a result of too much talk and too little action.
The action Fr. Bulgakov suggested was twofold. It is a twofold reaction to a Divine call to unity. Fr. Bulgakov correctly perceived that the "spiritual unity" that allowed common prayer between the Anglicans and Orthodox members of the Fellowship of St. Sergius and St. Alban was gift form God and at the same time a task to be performed equally given by God. God revealed this oneness and he demanded a human response.

This respons would sidestep certain canons of both Churches. First because the ancient canons were drawn up for heresies such as gnosticism, [Nestorianism], monophysitism, Arianism, etc. Heresies concerning the fundamentals of the Incarnation, Trinity, Salvation, separate one from the Life of the Church and prayer with such an heretic is excluded since there is no common life of the spirit, whose active expression prayer is.

Having established that neither the Anglicans at the Fellowship, nor the Orthodox are guilty of such heresies, these canons no longer function to regulate Church life at this point. Remember that canons are NOT infallible teachings of the Church, but simply practical rules to regulate Church-life. It is in their nature that they MUST change as time progresses and Church-life continues to develop thru the ages. They have here become unnecessarily obstructive of further life in the Spirit and spirit. A new situation arises in spiritual and historical consciousness, an awareness revealed by God demanding a human response.

The twofold response would be:
- the local Bishops of both Churches must allow for limited and regulated intercommunion.
- there is to be an exchange of "sacramental blessings" where Bishops of both Churches could even "lay on hands" in recognition of each others full sacramentality, though it does NOT constitute reordination of any sort.

This, to Bulgakov, was the next step to be taken in the spiritual and doctrinal life that they allready shared. Not to take this step would be "spiritually dangerous" because it would be the wrong response top God's invitation to unity. The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is about to enter a new stage of realization, the unity of worship in Spirit and Truth is about to be given practical shape. But,.. as history shows,.. The edenic fall was repeated. The snake once again was given preference over God. Paradise is still lost, and sin is still perpetuated. The schism exists still,.. The results are clearly seen in Anglicanism today, and even Orthodoxy is suffering the sins of this fall. To point at the other is to mimic the edenic fall even more,..

Now the Anglicans of today are by no means the Anglicans of so many years ago. But the situation that occured ath St. Sergius and St. Alban's Fellowship is even more true of the inter-Orthodox dialogue. For us to continue "mere talk" and not "walk the walk" is spiritually dangerous. The time has come that local bishops use their God-given canonical authority and that intercommunion be established on the grassroots level where possible. This way our brokenness ( a burden and "original ecclesial sin" weighing on the both of us, EO and OO) will be allowed to form "crusts" under whose protection by Local Bishops/Synods, the healing of the schism be realized so that in the near future a Holy and Pan-Orthodox Synod may establish new, contemporary, canons of full unity and oneness of ecclesial life.

The "Agreed Statements" [referring to those here: http://orthodoxunity.org/statements.html], I believe, constitute enough "doctrinal gound" to speak of "essential, doctrinal, union. To NOT unite, and to continue "mere discussion of differences" is a sin. It is a slap in the blessed face of Christ our Lord, another strike of the cruel whip on His back, another hammer-blow on the nails in His blessed hands and feet. It is also a staring at the grave, and a lingering in Jerusalem, mourning the dead Jesus, in defiance of the message of the womand and the angels that Jesus has risen and a new, wholesome life in Him in His Spirit is awaiting those who travel to Galilee, to the Pentecost, to the Spirit who baptizes us into One Body. Anti-ecumenism is a heresy. A heresy of Church-life, it is the heresy of disobedience, the heresy of Eden.

Lastly you state:

Please, do not assume that I am expressing “desperation to undermine His Eminence

When outlandish things are read into his statements which simply do not exist, that is how it comes across; I do not say you do this intentionally however. As one pointed out earlier, you have to give consideration to the fact you are reading a translated work, and one that was aimed at a specific audience and hence a theology put in layman’s terms for their sake.

However the fact remains, HEMB clearly portrayed Orthodox doctrine; He clearly understands the personal relationship between Father and Son as that between Progenitor and Begotten respectively, and hence I fail to see why you have a problem with HEMB in the first place.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-06-2005, 07:34 PM

Athanasius wrote:

At Chalcedon, I believe the Spirit of God was grieved and absent due to certain people's abuse of their free will such that it was not a matter of “one side experiencing the Spirit differently” as you seem to be suggesting

Of course we could never accept about the Council of Chalcedon that the Holy Spirit was grieved & absent. For us the Council of Chalcedon is a pivotal expression of Orthodox faith concerning Christology. And wherever there is true Christology there is also the Holy Spirit guiding it. As such Chalcedon is considered by us Ecumenical- ie applying to the whole Church. If not juridically, then at least theologically in its essential teaching about Christ. (I am not talking here of terminology).

but rather it was a matter of both sides being unable to see and understand that they DID share the same living experience of the Spirit. We can go on for ages discussing whose fault it really was, but this won't achieve anything practical.

Granted that you are perhaps attempting here to provide a way for us both to go forward towards theological & thus canonical unity. For reasons I have stated before I would strongly submit that the division between us resulted- exactly as both sides stated during the times of the Councils- from conflicting theological visions.

This though does not mean that the vision of the both sides has not in fact come closer in the past decades. I would personally maintain that it has come closer for a number of reasons. And if so there is no good reason why we should avoid trying to heal this division.
As an added note I would also point out that some try to maintain that a pre-condition for healing these devisions is "owning up to the past". Church history shows us however that many fundamental divisions have been healed without rubbing in the salt. As long as a basic theological unity had been achieved many reconciliation councils actually covered whatever sins or shortcomings may have occurred in the past.

The long excerpt about Fr Sergius Bulgakov I believe is the perfect example of why the talks between us & the Oriental Orthodox have not yet achieved true unity between us. Specifically the idea that prayer is above theological unity is something deeply opposed to the Patristic mind of the Church. It is honestly difficult to see how the Oriental Orthodox would not see things in a similar way. In this sense we could not accept the statement from the article above that "Anti-ecumenism is a heresy. A heresy of Church-life, it is the heresy of disobedience, the heresy of Eden." There is a clear contradiction in the above statement since pure doctrinaire ecumenism rests on the opinion that 'everything is the Church'- which of course is fundamentally a rejection of the Church as the One Body of Christ.

Of course as already stated if theological unity is reached then there is every reason for canonical unity between us. At that point every charity possible may be shown. Without this however every effort will collapse- abstract 'prayer' above the Church since it is not of the Church can not bring anyone to the Church.

But to say it again- I don't think the Oriental Orthodox would oppose any of this. Indeed it is partly this which makes them so appealing to us. They have salt in their veins.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 08:37 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings to you:

Of course we could never accept about the Council of Chalcedon that the Holy Spirit was grieved & absent.

To qualify my statements on this subject; I would say that I do not negate the presence of the Holy Spirit at Chalcedon per se; I believe His presence can be evident in the fact that heresy was not adopted as Orthodoxy; but I would not attribute the instigation, impact, result, and consequences of Chalcedon to the Holy Spirit. From our perspective it was simply a failed council of schism. St Dioscorus presented a very valid statement to the Council: "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases." As my Church has held and as is a plausible reading of history, the Council was a politically motivated one whose concerns were far from doctrinal; undermining the See of Alexandria was the hidden and primary agenda of the Council.

And wherever there is true Christology there is also the Holy Spirit guiding it. As such Chalcedon is considered by us Ecumenical

I wouldn’t say that this is necessarily the case; if Ecumenicity were simply in relation to presenting the “truth”, then how does this distinguish mere local Orthodox councils from Ecumenical councils? Furthermore, as pertaining to Theology, I wouln’t apply Ecumenicity in relation to the Orthodox substance of a Council’s pronouncement but rather in relation to the measure of the strength and clarity of its Orthodoxy. The positive historical reaction to Chalcedon by the Nestorian church and the negative historical reaction to Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Church; the former by virtue of its feeling gratified by the fact that Nestorian documents and figures were exonerated, and its ability to conform Nestorianism with the Council’s Christology in general; and the latter, NOT by virtue of its adherence to “monophysitism” but rather by virtue of the fact it likewise interpreted Nestorianism at Chalcedon; is evidence of this of this lack of clarity and strength in its Orthodoxy. The fact that subsequent councils were called to correct and necessarily qualify Chalcedon since it could not stand on its own terms also provides substance to this claim.

For reasons I have stated before I would strongly submit that the division between us resulted- exactly as both sides stated during the times of the Councils- from conflicting theological visions.

This claim lacks substance. The Coptic Orthodox Church has never diverged from the Orthodox tradition it received her fathers, and history attests to this. St Dioscorus of Alexandria was not a monophysite, he was a faithful Cyrillian, an upholder of the miaphysite Christology that he received from his predecessor St Cyril himself. His successors, most notably, St Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria and St Theodosius of Alexandria, as well as other prominent non-Chalcedonian theologians such as St Philoxenus of Mabbogh, and St Severus of Antioch, were also loyal Orthodox servants to St Cyril. The fact of the matter is that to condemn any of these men, is to indirectly condemn the great St Cyril himself.

It is not only the claim of our Church Tradition that we never diverged from Orthodox doctrine, but we have the writings to prove it, and I would be more than happy to quote you the Christological works of these men which go vindicate each and every one of them from charge of monophysitism.

The importance of this point lies in the fact that a necessary pre-condition to re-union between our Church’s is the lifting of the anathema’s of the Saints of our respective Church’s, and such anathemas cannot be lifted unless we recognize the facts of history; that such figures never adopted the heresies ascribed to them by their ecclesiastical opponants.

It should be noted that St Dioscorus was not even condemned for heresy at Chalcedon, and this was a point that Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople was careful to point out to the Roman legates. St Dioscorus was not falsely condemned for heresy until over a century later by people who had never met him and who were obviously not acquainted with his Christology as it is documented. I fail to see any legitimate reason as to why you would ascribe infallibility to canons or statements of a council which are purely polemical in nature and not substantial to matters of faith or doctrine, even under the assumption that such a council was Ecumenical in any event. This seems to me, as I said before, a denial of that fundamental human-divine synergy which regulates Church life.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-06-2005, 10:12 PM

For us the Council of Chalcedon is a fundamental foundation of the faith as a witness that Christ is both fully God and fully man- and that through this we can attain salvation. In this sense Chalcedon is Ecumenical and its theological witness was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed for us this Christology defines what salvation means. Which may very well have been what the dispute was about in the first place. What does salvation really mean?

About the Council of Chalcedon we do not say that it was 'infallible' but rather Ecumenical. It is its theological & Christological witness that mainly concerns us not its historical intricacies.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

25-06-2005, 11:34 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr Raphael,

Peace and blessings to you:

Like I said; if witness to the Orthodox faith is what constitutes a Council's Ecumenicity, then why do you limit the number of Ecumenical Councils to 7? Are you telling me that only 7 councils throughout your history witnessed to the Orthodox faith?

Chalcedon's affirmation of Christ as fully man and fully God was not sufficient for our fathers; for it was done so in a manner so ambiguous that it allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor, and that lead to its rejection by those Orthodox who reasonably interpreted Nestorianism at the Council. I cannot say that the Holy Spirit manages a council in a manner such that it allows the heresy that it previously dealt with, to make a comeback, whilst at the same time motivating an unholy schism.

Regarding your conception of Church councils: You suggest that it is only matters pertaining to doctrine/faith that "concern" you; may I ask you why it is therefore, that you presuppose that my Church truly was monophysite, and that changes have only taken place within the "past decades". If the condemnations of your fathers against my fathers are not infallible since they are polemical statements which are merely part of the historical context, then what is the basis for the monophysite claim?

If i were to quote you St Dioscrous affirming the perfect humanity and divinity of our Lord, how would your regard this?

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

26-06-2005, 11:19 AM

Dear Athanasius and others,

I am pleased to see this conversation moving once again, as there is much fruitful ground here for discussion. However, it does seem that the most recent posts have simply been re-statements of earlier messages, or at the very least earlier points re-issued. Once again we have portraits of Chalcedon:

To qualify my statements on this subject; I would say that I do not negate the presence of the Holy Spirit at Chalcedon per se; I believe His presence can be evident in the fact that heresy was not adopted as Orthodoxy; but I would not attribute the instigation, impact, result, and consequences of Chalcedon to the Holy Spirit. From our perspective it was simply a failed council of schism.

This was very much the sort of claim being made in this conversation back around the 7th of June. In a message I posted on that day, I attempted to point out some serious historical challenges to this assertion; yet I see that these have not received consideration or response, and that again the same claims are being made. To ground theological discussions on the bedrock of inauthentic history is rarely to establish a secure footing.

To claim that Chalcedon was a ‘council of schism’ (with, as was made explicit in earlier posts, the connected assertion that Ephesus was a ‘council of unity’) challenges all historical evidence. If one wishes to make such a claim, then one should actually respond to the reality of history. Simply pulling out extracted quotations of apparent relevance does not support such a strange claim. Take for example the following, from a recent message:

St Dioscorus presented a very valid statement to the Council: "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

Dioscorus’ comment here has been taken very much out of context. The assertion he wishes to make is of ultimate authority, not instigation of the council. Is it a council at which the emperor’s will prevails, or God’s? The quotation is quite clearly not about who called the council. Perhaps most notably, Nicaea was called together by an emperor (Constantine); and if he who summons or calls for a council is to be the source of its authoritative status, then we must all immediately dismiss Ephesus, for that council (the so-called ‘council of unity’) was called not even by an emperor, but by Nestorius. If anything, the summons of a council in 451 by Theodosius II’s young successor, Marcian, was issued precisely because there was growing imperial fatigue at the ongoing (and increasing) disunity among Christians.

This kind of ‘history’, which revises for its own ends, has no place in an Orthodox consciousness. Simply to repeat it when challenged proves that one does not truly wish to engage in discussion and exploration, but solely to make one’s own point.

The same is true of the second issue that was raised earlier in this conversation (which then pealed off into its own thread), which again has here not been considered but simply re-stated:

The Coptic Orthodox Church has never diverged from the Orthodox tradition it received her fathers, and history attests to this. […] It is not only the claim of our Church Tradition that we never diverged from Orthodox doctrine, but we have the writings to prove it.

This type of comment not only does absolutely nothing for creative discussion with others, but also prevents one from authentically understanding the individuals of one’s own background and history—and perhaps more importantly, it is simply untrue. But on that discussion, please refer to the Preserving Orthodoxy thread, where it is being discussed at length.

One further issue for setting the stage for real discussion is again the unfruitfulness of comments such as the following:

The fact of the matter is that to condemn any of these men [i.e. Timothy, Theodosius, Philoxenus, Severus], is to indirectly condemn the great St Cyril himself.

This simply is not true—it is a type of statement designed to protect one’s interests. A disciple’s or a follower’s thought is not identical to the thought of his teacher. When Tatian, the disciple of Justin, was condemned for several of his rather divergent views, no one claimed that it was Justin himself who was being condemned ‘by proxy’ through his follower. If one challenges or questions (or comes to condemn) the thought of such a one as, for example, Philoxenus, there is no direct challenge to the thought of Cyril unless one clearly wishes to establish such a line of attachment. Else we again engage in bizarre historical readings—readings that would ultimately have us condemn the fathers of Nicaea on account of the condemnation of Apollinarius, who was himself fiercely pro-Nicene.

There is much room for fruitful discussion on the relationship of Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christology, but such fruitful discussion will never take place in the context of misrepresentative history. Such misrepresentation not only prevents real discussion, but renders less authentic the inner thought of both ‘sides’. Cyril of Alexandria will never be understood rightly in a ‘pro-Cyrilline’ context that mis-construes the history and theological vision that grounds his writings; any more than Chalcedon can be understood rightly from a ‘pro-Chalcedonian’ context that does not take on board the authentic, positive challenges of that council and its documents.

INXC, Matthew

leandros

26-06-2005, 12:46 PM

I submit two tables that show the significant difference between Orthodox Coptic (non-Chalcedonian) and Orthodox non-Coptic (Chalcedonian) Theologies of Holy Trinity.

The Coptic table was presented by H.E.Copt Metropolitan Bishoy (http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Trinity/engschedule.doc) and the non-coptic table is a modified version according to Chalcedonian faith.

[Images removed by admin for formatting problems; please contact Leandros for tables.]

A question mark does all the difference !
And how it makes alien each faith to the other !

M.C. Steenberg

26-06-2005, 03:04 PM

Dear all,

Some interesting Christological matters have appeared in some of the above posts. It has already been raised on several occasions that the question of terminological employment is key in these discussions; what do we mean when we employ words such as ‘physis’, ‘ousia’, ‘hypostasis’ and others? Are the intended meanings the same across various speakers and eras? Does one individual’s expression stand or fall based on relations drawn to the employment of terminology compared with others? If so, is this valid?

Among many others, the terms ‘nature’, ‘person’ and ‘hypostasis’ were among the most important and least-consistently employed terms in the fifth century. This remains true to some degree today. We may look, for example, at the following quotation (already offered in a message above) from metropolitan Bishoy:

The person is the carrier of the nature; he is the owner of the nature (lecture 2 p. 5).

This is one way to speak of ‘person’: as concrete ‘carrier’ which takes up and manifests a given ‘nature’. Bishoy continues:

If you have a cup where you can put any kind of liquid; if you put water in this cup, you say that this is a cup of water. If you put oil in the same cup, you say this is a cup of oil. The person is the carrier of the nature, so, if this nature is divine He is a God, if it is human, he is man. If this nature was divinity and humanity together, at the same time, the same person is both God and man (lecture 2 p. 6).

Again, this is a coherent reading of ‘person’ in a particular definition. The ‘carrier’ becomes ‘owner’ of that which is, according to the cup of water analogy, ‘put in it’.

This is coherent, but it is not strictly Cyrilline. For his part, Cyril firstly did not like the term ‘person’ and rarely used it. Secondly, the idea that ‘person’ can be conceived as something objectively distinct from the ‘nature’ underlying it, Cyril would himself have viewed as Nestorian. For Cyril, the ‘person’ (and he would call this reality ‘hypostasis’ rather than ‘prosopon’) is that which substantively is the nature which is only ever existent hypostatically—that is, as hypostasis. The Hypostasis does not ‘have’ or ‘contain’ a nature (or natures); it is a nature/natures substantively existing.

I do not say this to challenge, per se, what metropolitan Bishoy is saying—only to challenge any claim that he is merely proclaiming the same teaching as Cyril. He is in fact proclaiming a refinement and alteration of Cyril. This has been precisely my point elsewhere, in stating that claims that ‘we (whether “we” be Chalcedonians or non-Chalcedonians) simply say what Cyril said’ are not in fact accurate. One articulates the same reality Cyril articulates. Few, if any, actually say what he said.

This is precisely the case with such a council as Chalcedon. As most scholars are coming to recognise, the deliberations of Chalcedon are more profoundly Cyrilline in orientation than has often been admitted (pride of place for influence traditionally going to Leo of Rome). But Chalcedon certainly did not adopt Cyril’s language whole-sale. It took the language of ‘person’, more customary to Theodore and Nestorius as much as to Leo, as a means of clarifying distinct concepts for which Cyril himself was happy to employ one and the same term—thus Cyril’s willingness to employ ‘physis’ at times as a synonym to ‘ousia’, and at others as a synonym to ‘hypostasis’. In this light, there is more a ‘Chalcedonian’ terminological air than a strictly Cyrilline to the following statement by Bishoy:

I say, yes He is a man! Because He gave His person to the humanity which He assumed, so this humanity was personalized in Himself. He gave it His own person.

Cyril would prefer to speak of hypostasis and hypostatisation: the hypostasis of the eternal Son, which eternally hypostatises the physis (=ousia) of the divine (God), in the incarnation comes to hypostatise also the physis (=ousia) of the human. The one incarnational hypostasis (or one ‘physis’) is now the hypostatisation of two natures in one subsistent reality.

But Bishoy’s point is in fact precisely this. So he writes:

He is both God and man at the same time. In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.

Far from being objectionable, this is in fact precisely what Chalcedon states (though I am certain the metropolitan would question whether it does). Chalcedon clearly relates that the one ‘person’ (i.e. subsistent reality) is a person who subsists as—or in other words ‘hypostatises’—two natures (clarified in Chalcedon to be equitable to ‘ousiai’, as per one form of Cyril’s usage). If we pay strict attention to Chalcedon, we learn that to call Christ’s person ‘divine’, and thus say he is a ‘divine person’, is an inaccuracy; and to call him a ‘human person’ is similarly inaccurate. The one ‘person’ that Christ is, is clearly stated by Chalcedon to be a person of both divine and human natures. To call Christ a ‘human person’ is not ‘half right’, but wrong. The ‘person’ of Christ must always be referred to as ‘divine-human’. He is theanthropos, the God-man.

The objection that 'The phrase that Christ is a “divine human being” is against first, second and third ecumenical council doctrines’ is, it seems, to misunderstand what is being claimed. The anti-Apollinarian motivation of the second council in particular was against a ‘divine man’ or ‘heavenly man’ theology inasmuch as that represented a belief that the human nature in Christ was itself ‘made divine’ or, more dramatically, had its origin in the divine, and as such was not authentically human in a concrete sense. This Chalcedon also addressed in proclaiming the dual-consubstantiality of the Son: he is consubstantial with the Father as pertains to his divinity, and consubstantial with us as pertains to his humanity. The ‘human’ of Christ’s humanity is not a ‘divine humanity’, but a fully real, fully human humanity. But Christ’s person is not, as is the case with each of us, a singularly human personhood, but a divine-human personhood.

INXC, Matthew

leandros

26-06-2005, 03:16 PM

Matthew, and all,

I apologize for the technical problem.

Let me resubmit the links to the tables:

TABLE OF COPTIC DOCTRINE (http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Trinity/engschedule.doc)

TABLE OF CHALCEDONIAN DOCTRINE (http://users.myqnet.gr/~leandrosp/NonCopt.doc)

Athanasius Abdullah

26-06-2005, 03:50 PM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

Unfortunately, another failed attempt to prove difference; I don't understand why you are trying so hard that you need to consistently impute implications into HEMB's statements which simply do not exist.

I fail to see how HEMB declares that "Father" is a "name of the essence" in his chart, when he clearly and explicitly, distinguishes "Fatherhood" and "Sonship" according to the category of "hypostatic properties". Again, it is absolutely mind boggling how you manage to misinterpret such explicit and blatant teachings; the whole chart's purpose is to prove the distinction between Father and Son in purely relational terms; that's why in the first example he labels the Father "Truthful" and The Son "Truth", to emphasise their relationship as one between "Progenitor" and "Begotten", since obviously "the truthful" is the source of "truth", and the "truth" the begotten of the "truthful".

Regarding the question-mark, again you feel the need to read unwarranted implications into HEMB's work, for I presume you are attempting to show that HEMB is defining the essence of God. Such an imputed implication however is simply unwarranted. By "properties of the essence", HEMB is simply declaring those "common attributes" belonging to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which they possess by virtue of their possession of the common divine essence. By reiterating the attributes of God as they are presented in the Biblical text, HEMB is not attempting to describe or know the essence of God anymore than the Apostles and prophets of God who affirmed these very positive attributes in the Bible itself. There is nothing wrong with using human language in order to attempt to describe the unknowable as long as we realize and apprehend that such language is in itself inadequate, and as long as we realise that such language is not to be understood according to our human standards (i.e. we can speak of God as possessing the attribute of Justice, but we don’t exactly know what this means, nor can we understand it in the legal or social context of human society) - this is a matter of SUBJECTIVE INTENTION.

Some of the greatest saints of the Coptic Church declared the un-knowability of God's essence, including our very own Coptic Saint St Athanasius, and St Basil the great whose liturgy we employ as our common daily one.

Unfortunately for you Leandros, HEMB did not write his works under the assumption that he would need to qualify each and every little detail and statement for the sake of a skeptic desperate to read heresy into each and every proclamation. He is writing his articles as an Orthodox Bishop addressing an Orthodox audience, and so he assumes that his Orthodox audience understands the basic Orthodox context in which he explains the Trinity doctrine, such that we can ASSUME that when he declares that God possesses "Truth" as an attribute of the essence, that this is NOT truth according to human standards, without him explicitly and unecessarily stating so since that particular topic is not the concern or purpose of his paper, rather the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is.

Why you must presume that he is listing the attributes of God in a context any different from how they are listed by the Church Fathers or by the Apostles themselves is beyond me. You claim to have no agenda here, but you're not giving me much reason to give you any benefit of the doubt.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

(Message edited by miaphysite on 26 June, 2005)

Athanasius Abdullah

26-06-2005, 04:40 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C.Steenberg,

Peace and blessings to you:

However, it does seem that the most recent posts have simply been re-statements of earlier messages, or at the very least earlier points re-issued.

Indeed; please do not think that I have ignored you, or that I do not plan on engaging with your responses, it is just that my responsibilities and duties have not eased off as I predicted they would within the last week, and I really believe that your responses require me to now step up and properly substantiate the very general position that I have established, and hence I need a sufficient amount of quality time in order to utilize the relevant resources and type a properly grounded response (I in fact only recently just discovered that your site has uploaded many of the primary texts relevant for this discussion, so that should make life easier).

I only re-iterate my very general position to Fr. Raphael, since I believe his response to me failed to understand what that very general position of mine is in the first place.

Dioscorus’ comment here has been taken very much out of context. The assertion he wishes to make is of ultimate authority, not instigation of the council. Is it a council at which the emperor’s will prevails, or God’s? The quotation is quite clearly not about who called the council.

Right; however I do not recall interpreting it literally in any event. I qualified the quotation in a manner that interpreted St Dioscorus as questioning the motivation/purpose behind the council according to its ultimate authority i.e. If according to the will of God, the Council would be concerned with Orthodox coherence and unity; if according to the imperial authority and hence the will of the emperor, the Council would be concerned with a political agenda - which St Dioscorus would have already thought by virtue of the fact that he was being summoned to the council whilst falsely under house arrest by the imperial guards.

If one challenges or questions (or comes to condemn) the thought of such a one as, for example, Philoxenus, there is no direct challenge to the thought of Cyril unless one clearly wishes to establish such a line of attachment. (bold emphasis my own)

Ofcourse! Thus far I have only generally put forth my position and I most definitely intend to establish this necessary "line of attachment" in order to substantiate that very position, which has most notably already been done so (for St Philoxenus specifically) by Professor Andre de Halleux,.

P.S. I appreciate your input regarding HEMB's Christological papers, since I was beggining to wander whether all EO's were reading the sort of things leandros was.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

leandros

26-06-2005, 06:37 PM

Dear friends,

According to Chalcedonian doctrine, as it is presented by Cappadocian Fathers, there are three ontological distinction of God’s existence:

“entity is” (oôé åóôß) - ontology
“what entity is” (ôé åóôß) - essence
“how entity is” (oðùò åóôß) – hypostasis/person/way of being

Chalcedonians declared that Christ is one entity in the following ontological distinctions that define existence:

"entity is": Christ is.

“what entity is”: Christ is two natures, an unknown/incomprehensible uncreated
Divide Essence and a distinct known created human essence.

“how entity is”: Christ is One hypostasis that simultaneously and without separation or interference manifests through Him the uncreated divine way of “being Son of the Father” and the created human way of “being Son of the Father”. He is One person/hypostasis because both His uncreated and created “way of being” are united without being equated in a singular “way of being the Son of the Father”.

H.H. Coptic Metropolitan says “The question is: Is Jesus Christ a man; if He didn’t assume a human person? I say, yes He is a man! Because He gave His person to the humanity which He assumed, so this humanity was personalized in Himself. He gave it His own person. So in Him the humanity which He assumed from Saint Mary by the Holy Spirit, formed a man in His God-person. Why? Because the person is the owner and carrier of the nature. If this owner carried divinity, he is God, if he carried humanity, he is a man. Since He owned both, divinity and humanity together, He is a God-man” By his answers he names Christ “man” because of His human nature. For then he comes to the conclusion that “The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being”. So, according to Coptic theology, Christ is named divine because of His divine nature, and He is named man because of His human nature. Thus, by having both of them He is named God-man, theandric, or “divine human being”. In this context, Christ is named “divine human being” from his two essences, the divine and the human.

First, second and third ecumenical councils declared that Christ is not named divine as a name of His essence, neither He is named divine as a name of the will of the Father, but He is named Son as a name of His Sonship relation with the Father.

By that declaration the Councils preserved the freedom of Holy Trinity Life. But, Coptic theology of “divine human being” presents Son to become subject of necessity of His essence.

There is a great mystery involved in Incarnation of Christ and this is not the unification of the two natures, but the ontological unification of ungeneration with generation. Son as a name of uncreated “way of being” Son of the Father is a manifestation of Trinity Person. But, Christ’s Incarnation presents Son as a name of created “way of being” Son of the Father. Yet, these phenomenological two “ways of being Son of the Father” is One "way of being Son of the Father", which is Christ. This is the mystery of mysteries that no angel or human can understand.

First, second and third ecumenical councils (and all other that followed) declared that Divine Persons of Holy Trinity are ontological manifestations of three distinct “ways of being” in communion among themselves that can not be separated from each other and that can not realized separately out of their communion because they are identified within the relation itself in such a unique way while at the same time remain discrete and self-existent; they also declared that the nature of divine being is absolutely incomprehensible.

Let me use a human analogy for the Christian doctrine of Holy Trinity: Two human beings, in the relation of matrimony are named “wife” and “husband”. Each named participant of the matrimony relation is absolutely unique and while it is in itself identified with the relation it remains discrete for the otherness that is also identified with the relation. At the same time there can not be separate realization of each named participant as “wife” and “husband”. “Wife” alone has no ontological meaning and “husband” alone has no ontological meaning. This is the ontology of matrimony.

In this context, I can say that “wife” and “husband” is a name of matrimony essence, but then I am talking about abstract matrimony with abstract view of distinct “wifehood” and “husbandhood”, as ideas without reference to specific matrimony realization. Talking in such abstract fashion “wife” could be presented as an “idea” of “husband” for the essence of matrimony, or as the result of his action that resulted in the relation of matrimony.

St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Third theological Oration (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-44.htm#P4360_1362644) distinguishes ontological theology, and abstract philosophy speaking about the Father and the Son:

“XVI. How shall we pass over the following point, which is no less amazing than the rest? Father, they say, is a name either of an essence or of an Action, thinking to bind us down on both sides. If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will say that we agree with them that the Son is of another Essence, since there is but one Essence of God, and this, according to them, is preoccupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say that it is the name of an Action, we shall be supposed to acknowledge plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an Agent there must also be an Effect. And they will say they wonder how that which is made can be identical with That which made it. I should myself have been frightened with your distinction, if it had been necessary to accept one or other of the alternatives, and not rather put both aside, and state a third and truer one, namely, that Father is not a name either of an essence or of an action, most clever sirs. But it is the name of the Relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For as with us these names make known a genuine and intimate relation, so, in the case before us too, they denote an identity of nature between Him That is begotten and Him That begets. But let us concede to you that Father is a name of essence, it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not make it of a different nature, according to common ideas and the force of these names. Let it be, if it so please you, the name of an action; you will not defeat us in this way either. The Homoousion would be indeed the result of this action, or otherwise the conception of an action in this matter would be absurd.” (emphasis marked by me)

Christian Orthodox Theology is not abstract philosophy of religion.
It is the expression of practical experience of ontological reality.

May God bless us, all.

M.C. Steenberg

27-06-2005, 12:16 AM

Dear Leandros,

In your recent post you employed some Greek terms, but encoded in a format I cannot seem to display -- they simply appear as garbled characters. I wonder if you could attempt a repost in either the Symbol font, or (perhaps more safely) in transliteration into Latin characters (e.g. logos, physis, sesarkomene, etc.).

Many thanks. I couldn't make sense of your comments on first reading, but hope the Greek on which your comments are based will shed some light.

INXC, Matthew

leandros

27-06-2005, 01:20 AM

Dear Matthew,

in post no 127 the greek terms are (in latin characters):

“entity is” (oti estin) - ontology
“what entity is” (ti estin) - essence
“how entity is” (opws estin/opos estin) – hypostasis/person/way of being

Thank you for the notification.

Athanasius Abdullah

27-06-2005, 07:41 AM

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

But, Coptic theology of “divine human being” presents Son to become subject of necessity of His essence.

Where on earth are you reading this? M.C. Steenberg’s understanding of the expression “divine human being” in the context in which HEMB employs the term is perfect; it is the plain, simple, reasonable and obviously intended implication of the statement: Christ subsists according to a complete divine and complete human nature. PERIOD. There is absolutely nothing more to it.

I cannot continue this discussion with you if you insist on choosing to eisegete HEMB’s statements falsely in the manner you have repeatedly done so thus far; I would only be wasting my time and yours by continuing any further discussion with you. I don't think HEMB requires my defense, for his intentions are plainly and simply Orthodox to all who can and are willing to see it. You are attempting to twist, complicate and confuse matters for no good reason, and I don’t feel that your input is doing any justice to this discussion.

Again, I would appreciate the input of M.C.Steenberg on this matter; if he can see any of the alleged heterodoxy that you are seeing, then maybe I will reconsider the fact that the problem is with what I believe to be the plain and obvious interpretation; but for now, all I see is you forcing and imputing ideas and implications in his statements that are unreasonable and unwarranted to do so.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

27-06-2005, 10:47 AM

Dear Leandros,
Thank you for posting the transliterated Greek. I think that some clarity over terminology here is again required, as is a more careful examination of which councils actually said what. You proffered the following three categories of distinction of God’s existence as being ‘according to Chalcedonian doctrine’:

“entity is” (oti estin) - ontology
“what entity is” (ti estin) - essence
“how entity is” (opws estin/opos estin) – hypostasis/person/way of being

Firstly, it is worth noting that Chalcedon itself does not in fact establish such categories; and the Cappadocian fathers, who wrote a solid half-century before that council, don’t specifically establish them as such, either (though there is much in their writings about the question over ‘what’ vs. ‘how’).

Secondly, the categories themselves are problematic. To relate one category to ‘ontology’ and another to ‘essence’ is to overlook the fact that ‘ontology’ means essence, or relating-to-essence. The difference between oti estin and ti estin is one of affirmation versus interrogation, rather than two independent categories. I see very little patristic grounding for any type of differentiation between them. (As an aside, the analogy of husband and wife has some good points to it, but stating that ‘“Wife” alone has no ontological meaning and “husband” alone has no ontological meaning. This is the ontology of matrimony’ seems again to confuse what is meant by ‘ontology’.)

It is the distinction between ontology and existentialism (or ‘hypostatisation’) that is the issue addressed by the Cappadocians (particularly Gregory of Nyssa)—the whole brunt of his ‘what vs. how’ discussion in a text such as the Ad Ablabius. Given that all named attributes of God (goodness, love, power, etc.) are ascribable not singularly to Father, Son or Spirit, but to the whole of the Trinity, such names and the attributes they represent must be understood as aspects of the ontology, or the divine ousia/essence that God is—they cannot be understood as proper characteristics solely of one or another hypostasis. That which is uniquely and solely the property of each hypostasis is its hypostatic relation to the other two; or, more pointedly, the relationship to the ‘one source/cause’ (monarchia) who is the Father. To employ the language (often ascribed to the Cappadocians) of ‘one ousia in three hypostases’ is emphatically to speak of God in both ‘what’ (ontology) and ‘how’ (hypostatic) categories: what God is, is the singular divine nature; how God exists is as the three hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You later wrote:

First, second and third ecumenical councils declared that Christ is not named divine as a name of His essence, neither He is named divine as a name of the will of the Father, but He is named Son as a name of His Sonship relation with the Father.

Again, we must be careful: the first council certainly does not say this, nor does the third. The second can be seen to say something similar primarily through non-conciliar documents by fathers who were there (e.g. the two Gregories).

The statement itself is somewhat loose, as it is comparing categories that cannot be compared. Certainly the fathers do proclaim that Christ can be called divine as divine in essence; the refinement offered through such individuals as Gregory of Nyssa is to state, not that this name cannot be ascribed to essence, but that names in general cannot define the personal subject of the essence spoken of—that names refer primarily to acts (i.e. ‘divine’ means ‘one who acts in a divine way’), and are not definitive of the subject described as acting. Your second point is clearly correct. The third is also true, but is not in fact dealing with the same issue as the first or second. The hypostatic particularity of the Son is defined by his relationship to the Father as the one begotten (‘Only-begotten’)—which Gregory clearly indicates cannot be related to essence/ousia, since the Son is homoousios to the Father. Sonship is hypostatic, not ontological.

It is in this context that such intricacies of the Church’s Trinitarian thought have direct and immediate bearing on the Christological discussion to hand. When we speak of the incarnate Christ having a divine nature, clarified by Chalcedon as ‘homoousios with the Father’, it is clear that what is referred to is the divine ousia that is the one nature of the Father, Son and Spirit. There is no other divine nature that the Son possesses, and the clarifications of the fourth century make abundantly clear that none of the Son’s particular characteristics as Son are caused by his nature (ousia), since the nature is one in the whole of the Trinity. That which makes the Son uniquely Son is that the divine ousia is, in him, hypostatised in begotten relationship to the Father. It is in the hypostasis of the Son that his sonship is found.

This means that in the incarnation, merely ‘a person’ having ‘divine nature’ would not in fact be an incarnation of the Son—such a statement could equally refer to an incarnation of the Father, or the Spirit, which the fathers univocally deny. In the incarnation is found the divine nature of the Son, which means, according to the Trinitarian clarifications of Constantinople (381), that it must be the divine nature as hypostatised in the Son. This is Cyril’s point in developing his explanation of ‘hypostatic union’ in the incarnation: it is the hypostasis of the Son, who eternally has hypostatised the divine ousia, who in the incarnation comes also to hypostatise the human ousia—remaining at all times the one begotten of the Father, namely the Son.

This point the definition of Chalcedon also makes in calling the incarnate Christ ‘This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God]’, who is now ‘in two natures’. It is the same only-begotten Son who is now incarnate, the one hypostasis of begotten relation to the Father. What is new in the incarnation is that this hypostatic person now hypostatises two natures, rather than one. Yet, says the council, this hypostasis in two natures is ‘not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the creed of the fathers [i.e. Nicaea as refined at Constantinople] has delivered to us’. It is the one hypostasis of the Son that exists before, during and after the incarnation as Son of God, Lord, now Lord-made-man.

INXC, Matthew

leandros

27-06-2005, 10:54 AM

"But, Coptic theology of “divine human being” presents Son to become subject of necessity of His essence."

Where on earth are you reading this? M.C. Steenberg’s understanding of the expression “divine human being” in the context in which HEMB employs the term is perfect; it is the plain, simple, reasonable and obviously intended implication of the statement: Christ subsists according to a complete divine and complete human nature. PERIOD. There is absolutely nothing more to it.

Dear Athanasius Abdullah ,

I quote H.H. Metropolitan Bishoy:

“If you have a cup where you can put any kind of liquid; if you put water in this cup, you say that this is a cup of water. If you put oil in the same cup, you say this is a cup of oil. The person is the carrier of the nature, so, if this nature is divine He is a God, if it is human, he is man. If this nature was divinity and humanity together, at the same time, the same person is both God and man.

The question is: Is Jesus Christ a man; if He didn’t assume a human person? I say, yes He is a man! Because He gave His person to the humanity which He assumed, so this humanity was personalized in Himself. He gave it His own person. So in Him the humanity which He assumed from Saint Mary by the Holy Spirit, formed a man in His God-person. Why? Because the person is the owner and carrier of the nature. If this owner carried divinity, he is God, if he carried humanity, he is a man. Since He owned both, divinity and humanity together, He is a God-man. Thus some theologians call Him Theanthropos ÈåÜíèñùðïò (Èåoò + Üíèñùðïò). He is both God and man at the same time. In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.”

As I understand the “if” and the “since” H.H. Metropolitan Bishoy clearly “presents Son to become subject of necessity of His essence”.

According to my logic: “ SINCE the IF conditions are valid THEN the CONCLUSION is valid”

( IF CAUSE is present THEN it results the CONCLUSION)

In this context I understand his H.H. quotation:

“ SINCE (the IF conditions: "If this nature was divinity and humanity together, at the same time") THEN (conclusion:"the same person is both God and man")

“SINCE" (the IF conditions: "He owned both, divinity and humanity together") THEN"He is a God-man. Thus some theologians call Him Theanthropos In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.” (conclusion: )

So, Son is under the necessity ("if" = necessity, "since" = necessity) of His nature/essence, or else He is neither "Son of God", nor "Son of Man". The satisfaction of this double necessity permits/authorize Him then to be "divine human being".

Where is my false?

Athanasius Abdullah

27-06-2005, 11:32 AM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

As I understand the “if” and the “since” H.H. Metropolitan Bishoy clearly “presents Son to become subject of necessity of His essence”.

....The satisfaction of this double necessity permits/authorize Him then to be "divine human being".

HEMB in addressing a general and simple audience, relating simple principles in simple terms, essentially declares that It is necessary for Christ’s person to possess and thus subsist according to a complete humanity and a complete divinity in order for Him to be the “divine human being”, and since He does, thus He is. I really have no idea what the problem is; are you telling me that Christ can be the theandric being - the God-man - without possessing a complete humanity and complete divinity? I fail to understand what you're talking about, I am truly baffled; maybe it's me, i'm a slow person.

If I add one to one, I get two. If i don't add one to one, then i don't get two. Simirlarly, if Christ's person possesses a complete human nature plus a complete divine nature, then He is the God-man; if He doesn't then He isn't. I can't even believe I have to spell this out, it's abc stuff; this is all HEMB is saying.

The Son is not the “subject of necessity of His essence” but obviously His being the God-man, is necessarily contingent upon the essences possessed by His person. According to HEMB Christ's person possesses a complete human nature and a complete divine nature and hence He is the God-man. Period. His Incarnation was a voluntary act, He was under no necessity to assume our humanity, but He did so for the love of mankind. Where is the problem? I fail to see one - this is simply kindergarten Orthodox Christology.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-06-2005, 03:37 PM

There is something about this conversation which I feel it very important to point out.
In his book The Feasts of the Lord Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos writes that St Nikodemos the Agiorite,

usually employs a characteristic phrase: 'How & in what way'.

The Metropolitan continues,

I find this phrase very meaningful because it makes the preaching of the Church concrete and not abstract. This is said because it is possible for us to talk about theological questions in a theoretical way, which does not touch our soul. That kind of reporting is not orthodox. For when we read the homilies of the holy Fathers of the Church we discover that they analyse the events from the point of view of 'how and in what way.'

This is in fact what I have found here in the past few days as I have followed this thread and also considered the challenging questions raised especially by our brother Athanasius. Basically what I did was to "hit the books" again. From the original writings of the Holy Fathers to the brief histories of Chalcedon and finally to get out Fr Georges Florovsky's study of this period was a real joy. So while the above thread was going full steam ahead I was like a kid back in seminary having a grand old time of it.

The question however that came to my mind which Metropolitan Hierotheos sums up so well is why I sense a disjunct between what is on the thread and what I am reading.
Of course for those like myself there is a fair amount of this conversation difficult to follow because we are a bit dense intellectually & verbally. That always needs to be taken into account & not blame others for.

When one reads the Holy Fathers however it also is easy to not grasp everything they say. But here there is a crucial difference that one can as it were approach the outside of what they are saying and understand this. According to one's own understanding one can enter into what they say & still gain something significant even if one can go no further than a certain point. It's like eating a satisfying soup- even if one doesn't get the whole story there is still something satisfying one takes away.

I remember at seminary often hearing comments to the effect that learning about things like St Gregory Palamas with essense/energy distinctions obviously had no application to the simple praying baba. My response to this has always been that if it really doesn't have any application then in what sense was this a crucial struggle of the Faith? So even though the expression of these theological issues may well be difficult their application in the life of Faith should be immediate. And here's the thing- part of our effort must be to communicate "how & in what way" does this affect the lives of the faithful.

I say this because the issue before us is far from being theoretical. Flesh & blood Oriental Orthodox are coming through our doors. So the most important aspect of what we are presently discussing must be to give as clear an answer as possible to the question- is this Orthodox or not? Of course we on the reading end may not fully grasp why or why not. But an attempted answer to this should be explicit or at least patently implicit in what we present. After all this is part & parcel of the whole way in which the Holy Fathers thought & communicated.

It is better to risk a 'wrong answer' in this regard (at least it gets a needed correction). Let us then when discussing such a crucial topic as this which touches basically every aspect of our Orthodox life keep well in mind our baba who prays for us and depends on our deliberations.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

leandros

27-06-2005, 04:24 PM

HEMB in addressing a general and simple audience, relating simple principles in simple terms……. this is simply kindergarten Orthodox Christology.

Dear Athanasius,

As you can find in H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy gave the His lectures (http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/lecture%201.doc) at St. Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College in April of 2002 in the context of academic Theological studies. His lectures are part of St. Athanasius college curriculum.

The audience was not a "general and simple audience". H.E. Metropolitan Bisoy gave an academic lecture. Actually, as you can see in current year's programming (http://www.melbcopts.org/hq/theological.shtml), H.E's lectures are “offered for private study (Lecture notes provided & Audio Tapes available) and assessed as part of the Semester by sitting two 3-hour exam papers”.

From that, it is an understatement to say that it is a matter of “simply kindergarten Orthodox Christology”.

St. Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College mission is presented in His Grace Bishop Suriel's Welcome Message (http://www.melbcopts.org/hq/theological.shtml): “The mission of Saint Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College is to provide deep appreciation and understanding of Orthodox Christianity and Coptic heritage. This is achieved through scholarship, research and the pursuit of academic excellence following the tradition of the Catechetical School of Alexandria.....

We aim to foster the spiritual growth and to develop the gifts of each individual through the pursuit of prayer, knowledge, communication, service and fellowship to each other, through the grace of God.: “Academic excellence and professionalism is our aim. We aim to bring up strong generations of Coptic Orthodox Christians who know their faith and can relate it to their children for future generations. I also encourage those with a keen interest in theology to advance their studies with further Masters and PhD studies. I hope in the future that Saint Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Theological College can receive full accreditation and hence offer its own degrees that would be widely recognized”

For all these reasons, I feel that it is unfair for H.H Metropolitan Bisoy to deduct his lectures from their academic status to the point of facing them as simplified theology for unlettered audience. Personally, I credit H.E. Metropolitn Bishop writings and lectures with absolute respect and solemnity, as I understand H.E. to be of high statue and to be blessed with the gift of teaching. I would like to have Bishops with his talents in our Church.

As for the thread issue, I do not have available time now, but in a few hours time I will have the chance to write again.

May God Bless us, all.

Athanasius Abdullah

27-06-2005, 07:33 PM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

You’re correct, and I should not have assumed the aimed target audience of the particular lecture in question; it was not something I had noticed. In any event, this still does not negate the fact that he is simply conveying “kindergarten Christology” via the particular passage in question. I am sure every other student reading over the passage will simply extract the principles that: a) The person is the carrier/possessor of the nature and b) Christ’s person carries/possesses a complete human nature and a complete divine nature, and therefore he is the “divine human being”, the “God-man”, the “theanthropos”, the “theandric being”. Such an interpretation is what I immediately extracted upon reading the passage, just as M.C.Steenberg did, and as I’m sure it is the interpretation that the hundreds of students reading over his lectures will extract upon reading that particular passage. Most importantly the context of the passage clearly reveals that that is how he intended it to be interpreted.

I do not seek to undermine His Eminence, I am simply emphasizing the fact that you are eisegeting rather than exegeting his text by complicating the implications of a very simple statement relating a very simple principle, since the plain interpretation of the passage in question allows us to extract nothing beyond the basic fundamental and “kindergarten” principle that Christ’s person subsists according to perfect divinity and perfect humanity. I’m quite sure that if you were to confront His Eminence with the issues you have regarding his works that he would be just as bewildered as I am as to how it is you are reading the things you read from his text.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, and as another Copt emphasised; the texts of both HEMB and H.H. Pope Shenouda III, are translations from the original Arabic, and so this obviously may cause some problems; though with regards to the particular passage in question, I cannot see that there is any problem posed with regards to performing a proper interpretation regardless of the defects that I find in relation to the articulation and strength of the translation itself.

If you would like to engage with serious Oriental Orthodox Christology, I recommend you read the works of our most revered theologian St Severus of Antioch, whose name comes before the likes of St Athanasius, and even St Cyril, in the order of the commemoration of the Saints during the Coptic Liturgy (the order in fact goes: 1) St Mary 2) St John the Baptist 3) St Stephen the proto-martyr 4) St Mark the Evangelist 5) “Our Patriarch” St Severus). The reason I suggest this, is that the translators and scholars of St Severus have clearly defined the syriac terms that he employs and they consistently go back to the original syriac to help clarify what may seem like an ambiguous translation/rendering of the syriac in the first place. I believe there is a document on this very website with regards to St Severus concerning his objection to Chalcedon; if you would like to discuss that, I would be more than happy to once I have more time available. This issue regarding HEMB is mute as far as I’m concerned; you are reading things that a) I am not reading, and b) nor do I believe reflects any plausible or proper reading of the text in the first place. I addressed you, yet you insist on eisegeting the text your own way, so that is fine, it is your choice, but we have come to a dead-end.

Finally, Coptic Christology is neither defined nor determined by ONE Bishop. So if you would like to substantiate and support your position that the things you are reading from HEMB’s text were in fact intended by HEMB, and that such things are therefore part of Coptic Christology, then maybe you would like to find for me where those same principles are grounded in the works of other post-Chalcedon Oriental Orthodox theologians; particularly figures like St Severus of Antioch, St Timothy Aulerius of Alexandria, St Theodosius of Alexandria, St Philoxenus, and even any other contemporary Oriental Orthodox theologian like Father V.C. Samuel or Father Tadros Malaty.

Forgive me if i have rambled,

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Theopesta

28-06-2005, 01:54 AM

with feeling of weakness of my knowledge I want to understand the objection on "divine human being" on what bases??

as I try to find the meaning of being in the wikipedea and in webster's dictionary
it can refer to divine Being & also anything that is alive "entity"

in our english arabic dictionaries it use with maning of person.

can I say:
"divine human being" = "divine-human personhood"

I need the correction

Demetrios Galanidis

28-06-2005, 05:30 AM

Note: Leandros Post referenced above for encoding issues displays properly in 'Greek-ISO-8859-7'

Interesting post as well.

leandros

28-06-2005, 09:04 AM

My Friend Demetri,

Thanks for the detection.

I know that microsoft has included greek character set in the default windows fonts group.

M.C. Steenberg

28-06-2005, 10:36 AM

Leandros wrote:

In this context I understand his H.H. quotation:
“SINCE (the IF conditions: "If this nature was divinity and humanity together, at the same time") THEN (conclusion: "the same person is both God and man")

“SINCE" (the IF conditions: "He owned both, divinity and humanity together") THEN (conclusion: "He is a God-man. Thus some theologians call Him Theanthropos In English they call Him, a ‘theandric’ being from the Greek theanthropos. The theandric being is the being who is not only human, but is a divine human being.”)

So, Son is under the necessity ("if" = necessity, "since" = necessity) of His nature/essence, or else He is neither "Son of God", nor "Son of Man". The satisfaction of this double necessity permits/authorize Him then to be "divine human being".

With my empathy for what I believe you are trying to say, it does seem that you’re forcing Bishoy’s words themselves to proclaim things that you, rather than he, wish to discover.

It seems that you’re speaking (with concern) of ‘necessity’ in Christ’s personhood, which is certainly worthy in principle—whole streams of patristic consideration worked against so-called ‘necessitarianism’ in Christ: that he ‘had’ to become man by some cosmic requirement that was apart from the will of God, etc. But language of necessity is not always theologically incorrect. Necessity of two complete natures is in fact absolute, if confession of Christ as ‘truly God and truly man’ is to be maintained in the Church’s formal articulation. It is not ‘by necessity’ that Christ is incarnate—that is an act of divine will—; but if he truly is incarnate in the full sense of that reality, as the Church confesses, then he must of necessity be of natures both divine and human. If not, either his humanity or his divinity are but illusion, or the union itself if nominal.

To relate what must necessarily be confessed is not to imply that there is necessity driving the will of God. But when God so acts as the Church confesses him to act, the result of his action must be articulated according to the necessary truths that relate that confession.

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

28-06-2005, 12:04 PM

Fr Raphael wrote:

When one reads the Holy Fathers however it also is easy to not grasp everything they say. But here there is a crucial difference that one can as it were approach the outside of what they are saying and understand this. According to one's own understanding one can enter into what they say & still gain something significant even if one can go no further than a certain point. It's like eating a satisfying soup- even if one doesn't get the whole story there is still something satisfying one takes away.

[…] So even though the expression of these theological issues may well be difficult their application in the life of Faith should be immediate. And here's the thing- part of our effort must be to communicate "how & in what way" does this affect the lives of the faithful.

It seems to me that here there is a connection to some of what has been and continues to be discussed in the Preserving Orthodoxy thread elsewhere in this community. There the connection of ‘doctrine’ to ‘experience’ is central (I put both terms in inverted commas since what is meant by them is precisely what is being discussed in that conversation); for it is the nature of Orthodoxy that doctrine and experience are intertwined, for it is the experience of God which transfigures and sanctifies, but that experience is for all but the most mature (and even then…) mediated by the doctrinal articulation of the Church. Owen was hinting at something of this sort when he wrote:

There is a practical problem today in our Churches, the all too frequent inability of our clergy to connect with us regarding what we might call the pathos of existence, and to focus almost exclusively on what we are supposed to believe. That is a serious spiritual problem, but let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I was following in the same vein in stating:

None of this suggests that the various fathers mentioned have become ‘more virtuous’ or ‘more wise’, for they are all experiencing God, and that experience is wisdom and the source of all virtue. But the Church’s articulation of the mystery experienced in the life in Christ is a distinct matter.

In ensuring that we understand a distinction between the experience of God and the means used to articulate the reality of that experience, we not only maintain a proper conception of what ‘doctrine’ in fact is, but also directly connect it to the experience. Our doctrine articulates the living experience of the living God, and mediates that experience to we who struggle to approach it.

On these precise grounds, the considered discussion of the Church’s Christological doctrine has immensely ‘practical’ value, precisely inasmuch as it is in the doctrinal articulation that the experience of the incarnate Christ is mediated maternally to her faithful by the Church. It is sometimes difficult to extract the areas of such influence from the specific discussions as they unfold; but such pastoral concerns (which are the only kind of authentic theological concern) are everywhere present in Christological articulation. A few points based on the conversation above:

(a) Is Christ of one nature or two: While the intricacies of the relationship between ‘miaphysite’ and ‘diophysite’ Christologies are often complex and based on difficult terminological usage, the motivation for the intense discussion is eminently pastoral. What is it that the incarnate Christ is? If a being of ‘one nature’, is this nature fully my own such that I can turn to Christ as to one ‘like me in all respects’ and thus capable of the co-suffering of engagement with sin that enables my redemption? Or has that by which I find my relation to him, his humanity, in some sense been altered in a given conception?

(b) Is personhood ontological or hypostatic? The intricate discussion of whether the personhood of Christ is of his nature or of the hypostatisation of nature, has far more wide-reaching effects than merely the issue of Christological terminology. If ‘personhood’ in general is ontological, defined and consumed by nature, then not only does Christ become a different person in the incarnation, but who we are as persons beings not to mesh with Orthodox confession. If personhood equates to nature, then is the actual nature of humanity distorted in the ‘personal’ sin of Adam? If person is ontological, how can there be transfiguration and redemption without changing human nature into something other than human nature? How am I to see my own nature, its sinful realisation and its redemptive potential, in light of my confession of Christ? How will this effect the way I act?

(c) Is Christ ‘in’ or ‘of’ two natures? Perhaps among the most important pastoral ramifications of the ‘in two natures’ promulgated at Chalcedon is the fact that a singularity of personhood is proclaimed to exist in the persistent personalisation of two natural realities—divine and human. When the sinner comes to repent and seek sanctification in Christ, she does so amidst the Church’s profession that her own personhood may, like Christ’s (though by adoption rather than natural property), become one in which is realised both her true humanity and the grace and power of God. Ascetical advance is not an abandonment of self or dismissal of human personal being, but a communion and union with God in the one person of my own human life.

Ultimately, Christological discussion articulates the mystery of the one who is the centre of experience of Christian life—the life in Christ.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

28-06-2005, 01:14 PM

Peace and blessings to you all:

M.C.Steenberg wrote to Leandros:

With my empathy for what I believe you are trying to say, it does seem that you’re forcing Bishoy’s words themselves to proclaim things that you, rather than he, wish to discover.

Thank you for stepping in and providing a third opinion on the matter.

Leandros makes a valid point concerning the fact that the conception of Christ's Incarnation as an act of necessity, is indeed alien to Orthodoxy; but this is certainly not the concept that HEMB was communicating, nor one that the Coptic Church has ever adopted.

In reiterating the general principle conveyed by HEMB's comments, M.C. Steenberg states:

It is not ‘by necessity’ that Christ is incarnate—that is an act of divine will—; but if he truly is incarnate in the full sense of that reality, as the Church confesses, then he must of necessity be of natures both divine and human.

Indeed this is (in a manner articulated much more effectively than I could) precisely and simply all that HEMB is saying.

That Christ's Incarnation and consequent suffering and death were all voluntary acts, is a principle evident in the "Fraction To The Son For All Year Round" of the Coptic Liturgy:

Priest: "You are the "I AM", Who is before all ages, Who co-exists with the Father...Who is enthroned with the Father and is of the same Essence.

Congregation: Kyrie Eleison X3

Priest: The author of mercy Who willed to suffer in the place of sinners, of whom I am chief. So when you willed to save me You did not delegate an angel nor an archangel nor a Cherub nor a prophet, but You descended from the Bosom of Your Father to the womb of the Virgin..." (Ed. Fr Tadros Malaty & Deacon Nabih Fanous,The Coptic Liturgy of St Basil, Coptic Orthodox Sunday School Central Committee Sydney NSW 1995 3rd Edition, page 129)

Now that this issue is hopefully settled, I intend to concentrate on the thoutghful and well-written responses of M.C.Steenberg concerning the subject of Chalcedon and Oriental Orthodox Christology, and hopefully reply within a week or so, God-willing.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

28-06-2005, 03:25 PM

Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks which I believe put things in the proper context of salvation and the life in Christ.

Here however I am addressing myself as much as any others when I say that we must be very cautious about our expression of Orthodoxy in order that unwittingly what we are saying does not become subjective. This is especially so for the pastor and others responsible for the care of others (& most in the Church at some point are given this responsibility in some manner). The pastor of course brings his experience to what he says- but he must be extremely careful that this does not become more a focus for his own unresolved passions than for what the Church offers as its healing method. And from constant failure he knows this is much easier to fall into than may appear. So purposefully as a form of ascetic self-restraint he chooses to ask simply "what does the Church say?" And he strives likewise to give a simple answer. But any concern that he is becoming a mindless mouthpiece that would never heal in any case vanishes as he perceives how God uses him precisely in a personal way. That is- to the degree that he is prayerfully seeking Christ and not himself- Christ will speak in a unique personal way through him.

Thank you also for your points a,b,c etc. I have read through them and will certainly try to read through them again more carefully. Your comments remind me of a point made by Fr Georges Florovsky that the underlying assumption of monophysitism is an Augustinian (he means similarity of course not a direct link) view of nature- that it must fundamentally change to be deified. Now there's a problem both pastor & laity can relate to as it obviously reflects on what we mean by the spiritual life and for example asceticism eg- is it to break or transform us?
As you say

"When the sinner comes to repent and seek sanctification in Christ, he does so amidst the Church’s profession that his own personhood may, like Christ’s (though by adoption rather than natural property), become one in which is realised both his true humanity and the grace and power of God. Ascetical advance is not an abandonment of self or dismissal of human personal being, but a communion and union with God in the one person of my own human life.

I could not have said this better myself if I had tried to.

Of course we are still left with the $64 question of where this leaves our miaphysite brothers & sisters. Speaking just as a simple priest- in the above terms of person & salvation- in some things I have read there seems to still be a problem & in others not. I am however willing to be corrected by those like Theopesta Dem & Athanasius as to what they believe their church teaches about person & salvation in Christ. Is nature transformed in Christ or is it fundamentally altered?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Theopesta

28-06-2005, 04:11 PM

as a small disciple I say:
the nature healthy and righly transformed in christ only.
if fundamentally altered! by what? what excit the nature to alter are the emotions or the special human capacity.

the emotions and the strength of normal human capacity not give the holy blessed persistant transfom and then true spritual growth.

this special mind can be corrected with the truth

Athanasius Abdullah

28-06-2005, 05:58 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings to you:

I am however willing to be corrected by those like Theopesta Dem & Athanasius as to what they believe their church teaches about person & salvation in Christ. Is nature transformed in Christ or is it fundamentally altered?

Forgive me if I have misunderstood on your request, for due to my busy schedule I have been unable to properly read all the above posts, I have only been able to skim through them; so I will presume that you are essentially asking if the Coptic Church adheres to the traditional Orthodox doctrine of theosis, and if so in what context.

Theosis is most certainly fundamental to the Coptic Church’s understanding of soteriology; after all, the famous expression “God became man so that man may become God” finds its roots in, and is reiterated by many of the Alexandrian Church Fathers (St Clement, St Athanasius etc.). We do not understand theosis in a context of our natures being altered, but rather being transformed into the perfect image of God, and hence consequently being endowed in the resurrection, with the perfect moral character of God, as well as immortality.

We understand theosis in exactly the same manner that the Eastern Orthodox Church does, and hence you will find an article on the subject by Eastern Orthodox priest Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris, advocated by the following Coptic Orthodox website:

http://mycopticchurch.com/articles/read.asp?f=spiritual/theosis.html

Furthermore, His Grace Bishop Youssef of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States, says concerning theosis:

Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union. Our Lord Jesus Christ asked God the Father "They also may be one in us" (Jn 17:21). He also gave us the command of Theosis "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (Mt 5:48), our goal in life is to accomplish perfect union with God through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Man was created in the image and likeness of God, and then sin created a gap between God and mankind, causing damage to our souls. All Christians through baptism receive the seed of Theosis, which is not only to the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation and justification, but also a restoration of God's image. The sinful inclination of our human nature should not govern our behavior anymore; instead we should strive to live a holy life looking towards Jesus Christ the author of our faith, and growing in His knowledge and sonship. The restoration and sanctification of Theosis brings us back into relationship with the Creator. St. Athanasius' presentation of Theosis was summarized as "the reintegration of the divine image of man's creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also of the believer's transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God."

Our full union with God is a union with the "energies" of God. These energies, while an extension of God, are not to be confused with the "essence" or "substance" of God, which is unknown by humans and is shared only by the Holy Trinity. Our union with God will not make us gods but will make us partners in the Divine nature in works not in essence. We will not acquire the unique characteristics of God such as being the Creator, the Omnipotent, the Omnipresent, but it will make us partners with Him in building the Kingdom by our own salvation and by winning the souls of others to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Source: http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=649&catid=383

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

28-06-2005, 07:31 PM

Dear Thepesta Dem,

Thank you for your comments. If I understood you correctly the idea of a fundamental change in human nature would be some sort of self-contradiction. Salvation can only be attained in Christ through what is already inherent to our nature

Dear Athanasios,

Thank you also for your comments & reminding us that what we are talking about here is theosis. Of course we would want to know that we both mean the same thing by theosis. But as witnessed to especially by the words of His Grace Youssef above I think you are not only on the right track- I think we are on the same track as far as our understanding of what theosis & salvation mean.

As anyone may gather who has read my posts over the past months I actually do have a soft spot for the oriental Orthodox. This is because of something in their piety that in many cases we have lost. My own personal view is that as far as Christian unity goes that between us is the way we should most urgently strive for at the present time of course without covering up any fundamental theological differences.

I apologise if at times my words seem somewhat harsh towards you. This is not at all my intent but rather just to find the truth in faithfulness to the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Theopesta

29-06-2005, 12:12 AM

please just a question with al respection to the bezentic icons which is with the coptic have nearly the same lines in my view.
}
why you pain the person trinity seperated and the father oldest in time in the trinity icon,
I know your honest pure understanding of the theology of trinity
what the icon want to say by this separation.

we belive that all the manifestation in the old testament it is for the Son,
and to Abraam (gen18: 16-17, 22; 19: 1, 13) the 3 gusts are:
the son and the two archangle: Michle and gabrial
this is proved by the study of the two chapter together.

the fathers support this mind are:
1- Justin 56; 57
2- hilary : trinity 4:25, 27, 28 , 31; 12: 46
3- a manuscript no.58 in vatican librery about Michal the archangle said it is atributted to Jhon chrisostom.

the fathers said it is the holy trinity whom abraam saw are:
1- amberosios
2- augstine
those blessed fathers with all respection are latin or western.

why you draw the 3 person of the Holy trinity seperated although your deep strong knowledge of trinity theology?

Theopesta

29-06-2005, 01:40 AM

Brother Athanasios:
please I find some thing in your messages about the harmony of scraptures and I hope you be patient with my humble knowledge towards your deep knowledge and blessed zealous orthodox feelings
I write this in seperated threads to prevent the interference between subject of topics

please can you study with me this topic and all blessed fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers

Eugene

29-06-2005, 03:20 AM

I just wanted to thank everyone for very thoughtful discussion, from which I learnt a lot. If we consider the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy for instance, it is amazing how close our Orthodox theology and church life is to Oriental Orthodox theology and life, in spite of 1500 years separating us. May be I'm not theologically sensitive enough, but I can't find any theologically significant differences between our theologies that would constitute a heresy and therefore prevent us from union. Subtle theological differences can not be legitimate reason for schism, only a serious heresy that hinders the process of salvation is canonically valid cause for separation. All subtle theological and terminological differnces can be rectified in a dialogue within one church.

Recently I red two books by coptic theologist and elder Fr. Matta El-Meskeen "Orthodox prayer life" and "Communion of Love" and I was absolutely amazed by deep spiritual insights into theology and prayer life that Fr. Matta presents. I would highly recomment everyone to read those books, they were published by SVS press.

In Christ,
Evgeny

leandros

29-06-2005, 02:23 PM

Dear friends,

I will try to clarify my last posts, regarding Christ’s name of man-God according to Orthodox ontology, as we focalize to the issue with the help of forum members.

Orthodox ontology/theology is presenting “being” in absolute juncture with “way of being in a relation with otherness”. Orthodox ontology introduced the principal that there is no “being” apart/without “way of being in a relation with otherness”. A specific “being” must have, ought to have, an ontological “way of being in a relation with otherness”.

In presenting the specific “being” ‘Leandros’, it is not enough to say that he exists, and that he exists as a human being. These are the answers to the questions of “Is Leandros?” and “What is “Leandros”. Then, according to Orthodox ontology, I have to ask “How is Leandros, what is his way of being in a specific ontological relation?” The answer to this question is the presentation of his ontological personhood/hypostasis.

If I do not provide an answer to the last question, then Leandros is an illusion! Let me give you an example: If I say that “Leandros exists” and that “Leandros is a half-horse, half-man creature, having an essence of a ‘centaur’, without presenting his “way of being in a relation with otherness” then, I present a non specific ontological “being” but an abstract idea of centaur Leandros. He may “exist” in his natural environment, but without “being in relation with other entities” he is ontologically non-existed. Not because he is not recorded in an objective way, but because he is not realized in a subjective experiential way of being through the relation with otherness. The natural environment could be a subjective illusion, because it is not testified as a specific ontological reality from another being. But, the ontological relation is realized as an ontological reality beyond self-control, it is not the result of self-essence or of action. The otherness with whom Leandros should be in relation with, must be ontological proven by another ontological being too. This is the “trinity” of ontology.

There in nothing ontological that is self defined by its nature, or by its action.

In this context, Christ is not a man-God because he is able to act in two realities, or by having two separate natures. Such a presentation is an illusion of existence. It is an abstract presentation of self proven existence. This presentation is the ontology of non-existence.

Christ as a name of a specific relation is a specific person/hypostasis, the Son of God / Son of Man. His specific ontological hypostasis is not “defined and consumed by nature” (His action), neither “is it equates to his nature”. Son of God and Son of Man are the names of the specific ontological singular relation of way of being the Son of the Father. God-man is the name of a relation. God-man ontologically is the presentation of “way of being” of Christ in relation with His Father. Of course the substance of this relation is realized in his two natures, but this realization is not restricted in these two natures; it exists ontologically in separation from Christ, beyond Christ, and is realized at the same time by Father in a separate ontological realization, which is Fathership compared to Sonship, in being an ontological hypostatical otherness. We can not present the specific God-man being, without Father and we can not present the specific Father being without God-man. While God-man is a distinct ontological entity from Father at the same time He has no ontological meaning by Himself. God-man can not exist without Father; His essence is not an ontological being in the absence of His “way of being Son”. Neither Son of Man, nor Son of God can be presented as names of the specific one ontological being without the relation with Father, and Father can not exist ontologically without His Son “of God/of Man”, which is the one personhood/hypostasis of God-man. Son of God / Son of Man is a singular ontological being viewed as two “in thought only” (ti theoria mono).

This ontology of hypostasis presented in an analogy to “wife” / “husband” relation will help us to understand it: A woman is named “wife” as her name of the specific ontological relation with her “husband”. “Wife” is not “defined and consumed by nature” (she is not defined by her action) and she does not “equates to her nature”. “Wife” is a name of ontological hypostasis that is restricted in her self, although it’s not an ontological realization of her nature, but at the same time is a name of a relation that goes beyond self, having a realization of the specific relation beyond self in the otherness that is called “husband”. The specific realization of “wife” can not be presented without the presentation of “husband”. While “wife” and ”husband” are distinct ontological beings, absolutely in non-communion regarding the ontology of their way of being (because the specific “wife” has absolute existential/experiential ignorance of the specific “husbandhood” and “husband” has absolute existential/experiential ignorance of the specific “wifehood” – or else they would be both “wives” or “husbands”), at the same time they are so perfectly united in their ontological relation in which they are in union through the absolute non-communication of ontology of their hypostasis as the result of the specific uniqueness of each of the specific hypostasis in being in relation with otherness. The absence of “wife” is resulted in the absence of “husband” at once. The generation of “wife” generates “husband” at once.

One might argue that “wife” and “husband” are results of action of the specific beings. Well, Orthodox ontology says that they are not! Everything that is ontological present, that “exists”, is not an act of being, or an existence of essence. Every ontological presence has a “way of being”/hypostasis. Every ontological existence is provided by God as a specific ontological relation. The “way of being” for creatures is provided by God. (John 5:17) But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." In Creation, Father through Christ in Spirit provides the ontological “way of being”. In the “name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” these generations take place in the Mysteries/Rites of Church. Every Orthodox Rite is an ontological rite of passage, from non-existence to “way of being in relation with otherness”, it’s a generation of our hypostasis/personhood that is exclusively ours, but at the same time (being not our nature or our action), it exists in a non-communicate ontological “way of being” of otherness. In this context “husband” and “wife” as names of hypostases of ontological beings are generated at once in the Rite of holy Matrimony.

Christ as God-man does not exist in a “double window” existential ontology that is united in a “single window-over-window” realization of being. Christ is essentially living a specific human life (which we understand because it is the same as our life, because He has the same human essence like ours), and a specific Divine Life (which we could not know, because Divine Essence is incomprehensible). In the ontological question “what is Christ”, we give the answer: “He is both a man and a God, he is in two natures”. We can also answer that, He is a God-man, which in this context perfectly expresses His essential life in two natures, one known and one unknown. But our ignorance of the divine essence makes our answer ontologically abstract. The Devine Essence which is BEYOND EXISTENCE, is actually beyond ontology. We can not even say that Devise Essence is, let alone to present “what is It”. Ontologically the only affirmation that we can present about Devise Essence is our absolute existential, experiential and logical ignorance of It.

Then, Orthodox ontology presents that “Son of God” and “Son of Man” is not the name of the essential life of the specific ontological “Being”, “Son” is the name of His relation with His Father. Son is the name of being a specific Son. Son is the answer to the question “how is the Being-Christ related with otherness as a way of being?” According to Orthodox ontology, He is God-man as One hypostatical “way of being” in Sonship relation with Father in two natural ways of essential existential experience. He is God-man because He is the One specific Son of the Father in a Divine way of being and in a human way of being. But, while the ways of being are two the ontological relation of Sonship is One. He is not two Sons because the relation with the Father is one.

So, “God-man” as an essential definition is a privilege of Son, because Incarnation is His privilege (neither Father, nor Spirit have incarnated). This privilege is called by Cappadocian Fathers “the owned only by self” (to idion).

But, at the same time “God-man” is also the name of Relation of the specific ontological hypostasis of the specific Person that is presented in two distinct essential existential experiences, which is named “Son” from his relation with His Father. In this context God-man is not an “idion”(owned only by self) “way of being” of Son, because the Godmanship being a name of Sonship is the name of communion/relation with the Father (and the Spirit), as a non-communicative/unrelated “Sonship” and “Fathership”. God-man/Son as a specific hypostasis exists only in communion with His specific Father, and the realization of Sonship is not experienced by Father, while at the same time God-man/Son is the name of a singular specific relation that is experienced as Fathership by Father.

For that, the God-man/Son ontological hypostasis is at the same time a distinct hypostasis in two natural ways of essential existential experience in relation with Father. God-man/Son is the name of “way of being” that is owned absolutely exclusively by Him but is also communicated beyond Himself as a different realization of the specific relation in an absolute distinct and separate “way of being” of Father.

This is our Orthodox faith, as I can express it according to my experience, as a member of the Church.

Once, my four years old nephew was waiting for his older sister to return from the market. I asked him where his sister was and he replied “She is at the University, she will be back soon, please stay and let’s wait for her, together”.

I hope and pray that we, “Chalcedonians”, wait Christ to return from “the University” and the non-Chalcedonians to wait Christ to return from “the market”. What is important is to know the Person, not His whereabouts.

May God bless us, all.

Owen Jones

29-06-2005, 03:13 PM

leandros

29-06-2005, 04:08 PM

Dear theopesta dem,

In Daniel 7:8-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel%207:8-32;&version=31;) God is presented as “Ancient of Days” (paleos ton hmeron) in Judgement day sitting on a throne of which “a river of fire was flowing”.

In verses 13-14 Daniel continues: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

Christ is presented a “son of man” in front of “Ancient of Days” taking from the Father- Ancient of Days “authority, glory and sovereign power”. It is interesting that Daniel presents that “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him”(the son of man). This prophesy is consider one of the most powerful ones, as it presents Christ as human.

Following this images from Daniel’s prophesy were painted Orthodox Icons presenting Father as Ancient of Days and Son as a young man. Of course, this image is a presentation of Daniel’s prophesy and not a theological statement. Because many simple Christians unaware of prophesies were confused in seeing Father in the form of an old man, it was proposed by some Bishops not to iconize any new icons of Daniel's phrophesy, because there is a danger of temptation in thinking the image as a theological realization.

You are absolutely right that the orthodox theological presentation in iconography of Holy Trinity is the “hospitality of Abraham – three angels”, a theme taken also from the Old Testament.

I believe iconographers, members of the forum, could provide more information.

I have taken the following passage from an orthodox web site:

The Seventh Ecumenical Council declares: "Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity Himself shaped and impressed them, whatever the chorus of the prophets saw and narrated, and who hold to the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles which was passed on to the Fathers, and on account of this make icons of the Holy things and honour them." And again: "Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them (O wonder!) even before the Incarnation of the Word, but either speak empty words about having seen the unattainable and unseen Essence, or on the one hand pay heed to those who have seen these appearances of icons, types and forms of the truth, while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the Word become man and His sufferings on our behalf."

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows: "The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

leandros

29-06-2005, 06:25 PM

Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union.

Dear friends,

Since I am the "bad guy" for Coptic posts, let me make a correction.

Theosis is not a composite noun. It's a simple noun and grammatically has nothing to do with the greek word "Enosis" / union.

It is a word that is formed in exactly the same way as the words deification, divinization are formed in the English grammar, by keeping the root of the word and changing only its termination.

divine - -> divinization
deity - -> deification
theos - -> theosis (the greek termination is – sis)

The greek word "theosis":deification has the same root with the word "theos":god.

The english noun antithesis, which is actually the exact greek word used in english, is created in the same way from the greek word antithetos(opposite) by keeping the root “antithet” + termination “sis”

antithe-tos - -> antithe-sis

So, “union” is grammatically absent from greek word “Theosis”:deification. The literal interpetation of "theosis" is: "the proccess of becomming god").

Athanasius Abdullah

29-06-2005, 07:36 PM

Dearest to Christ Leandros:

Peace and blessings to you:

You said:

Since I am the "bad guy" for Coptic posts

Not at all, my friend. You are a brother in Christ, and this will never change regardless of the number of straw man attacks you wish to launch against my Church and her Bishops.

I stated in my last address to you, that I would rather avoid discussion with you since I question your motivations and intentions, considering the number of times you insist on going out of your way to misrepresent Coptic theology by unreasonably imputing implications into the text which simply and actually do not exist (and I ask for your forgiveness in advance if I have misinterpreted you, I am a sinner), however it is hard to sit here and read the intentions of my Bishops being twisted, and so I will jump in and speak up on such issues every now and then.

Let me make a correction. Theosis is not a composite noun.

Sorry, but I don’t see where His Grace made the point of theosis being a composite noun; this is yet another instance in which you choose to go out of your way to prove fault or error, whether significant or minor, where there is none. Allow me to explain. His Grace says:

Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union.

His Grace, in speaking of the interpretation of the term theosis, quite explicitly states that “theosis” means (as opposed to ‘translates to’ - since he clearly understands 'deification' to be the translation) “union with God”. He then speaks about the words “Theos” and “Enosis” being the base words of a particular expression; however the question is, what expression is His Grace referring to when making this brief semantic commentary: “theosis” or “union with God”? Since the grammatical construction of his statement does not make it clear, I believe it is only reasonable to assume that his remark is in reference to the expression “union with God”. As such, His Grace has by no means erred, for the transliteration of the Greek translation of “union with God” is in fact “theia enosis”; the term “Theos” in a slightly modified form.

That “theosis” can be interpreted as “theia enosis” (union with God) is a point made in the following excerpt from a paper written by Eastern Orthodox theologian Fr. John Romanides:

According to Palamas’ interpretation of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the terms THEOSIS (divinization or deification) and ENOSIS (union)...are synonymous. This means that everywhere Palamas speaks of union between the prophets of the Old Testament and the glory of God or an Old Testament prophet’s vision of the glory of God he is actually speaking of divinization.

Source: http://www.ortodoxia.it/romanides-palamide.htm

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Theopesta

29-06-2005, 07:50 PM

Brether leandros please accept our apologise as you are one of best honest Zealous friend to the alexandrian coptic zealous people

as you speak openly not by hony poison words

M.C. Steenberg

29-06-2005, 10:21 PM

Friends,

The quotation 'Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union' quite clearly is presenting and attempted translation, and one that is not entirely accurate as a translation. It is theologically sound as exegesis, but not as translation.

There is a tendency to be entirely too caustic towards others' comments on one's own position, and to make absolute and concrete the stated position of every individual deemed 'good' in one's own tradition. Such is helpful to very few.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

29-06-2005, 11:01 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg:

Peace and blessings to you,

The fact His Grace says “theosis or deification” as if they are interchangeable terms, is clear evidence that His Grace understands “deification” as the english translation of the Greek “theosis”. That it "means union with God" is clearly evidence of the fact he understands "theosis" to be synonymous with "union with God" in the same manner that Dionysius did according to Palamas. With regards to his comments regarding “theos” and “enosis”, allow me to reiterate my case via an analogy:

There was an oussary discovered within the vicinity of Jerusalem which is dated to the mid first century AD. It contains the following inscription which has been the subject of much controversey:

“James the brother of Jesus son of Joseph”

The question arises; who exactly is the son of Joseph according to this statement? Is it James or James’ brother Jesus? The grammatical construction of the statement does not allow us to determine anything conclusive.

The same consequences eventuating from such an ambiguous grammatical construction are evident in His Grace’s statement:

"Theosis or Deification means "union with God" taken from the Greek Theos - God, and the word Enosis - union."

The question arises; what is it exactly that is “taken from the Greek Theos – God, and the word Enosis – union? Is it “theosis”, or is it “union with God”? If the former, then Leandros has a case. If the latter, then His Grace has not erred since the Greek expression of “union with God” (“theia enosis”) is indeed based on the words theos and enosis.

I choose to give His Grace the benefit of the doubt; and I find no reason not to, apart from unwarranted skepticism.

I don’t want to drag this issue out any further, since it is neither relevant to this thread, nor is it of any significance to me really (It's not like I ascribe infallibility to my Bishops), but since one decided to make a deal out of it in the first place, I just thought I would attempt to clarify my initial case one last time, in case I wasn’t clear enough the first time around.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

29-06-2005, 11:38 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and blessings to you:

My own personal view is that as far as Christian unity goes that between us is the way we should most urgently strive for at the present time of course without covering up any fundamental theological differences.

Ofcourse…but the reality as I have experienced it, is that far from attempting to cover up differences, there are many who strive to concoct differences where there are none; it’s an unfortunate stain created by mindless overzealous polemics, that both Church’s have to clean up amongst those “hard-liners”.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

John Michael Fowler

30-06-2005, 03:34 PM

Hello to all, I agree largely with what Eugeny has said.

I would like to ask others if you were living in a place where there were an Anglican, RC and a Coptic Church which would you go to? The Coptic being the only one which isn't Chalcedonian.

Many of us live in places where there aren't that many Orthodox churches. I would prefer to be with the Copts than attend a service I know was just concotted, made up to meet the change in fashion. Not that these differences aren't important and it is educational for me to read them. I am not in 100% agreement with the Copts but I regard a Coptic priest as a priest, even if I don't kiss his hand. Vicars and pastors and the rest, I only respect as human beings, sometimes knowledgeable ones.

I'm not debating, and this may be a stupid question,
In Christ John

Athanasius Abdullah

30-06-2005, 03:47 PM

Dearest to Christ John,

Peace and blessings to you:

You bring up an interesting point regarding the comparison between Copts on the one hand and the Anglicans and RC's on the other, in relation to the Eastern Orthodox Church on the basis of their respective understanding of Chalcedon.

I would like to quote for you Eastern Orthodox theologian Fr. John Romanides, who provides an interesting perspective on this. He states:

“One must emphasize that acceptance of the Three or Seven Ecumenical Councils does not in itself entail agreement in faith. The Franco-Latin Papacy accepts these Councils, but in reality accepts not one of them. In like manner there are Orthodox, since Peter the Great, who in reality do not accept the soteriological and Old Testament presuppositions of these Councils. On the other hand those of the Oriental Orthodox...accept the first three of the Ecumenical Councils, but in reality accept all Seven, a fact which has now become clear in recent agreements.”

Source: http://romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Vasilis Kirikos

30-06-2005, 06:16 PM

Dear John, I do not mean to seem malevolent; but if I had children, in particular sons, I would for their sake definitely feel more secure and out of harm's way having my children attend a Coptic Church.. Vasilis

leandros

30-06-2005, 10:19 PM

Regarding Being -- Relations are not the only criteria. There are also non-relations. There is also a sharing of qualities. There is also presence (Parousia). There is union. There is communion. There is also hierarchy. There is also lasting and passing existence. There is also non-existence and non-Being.

Dear friends,

Relation is the one specific ontological “way of being”. It is not one of the the natural/created relations. "Relation" as an ontological "way of being" in mutual indwelling(Perichoresis), interpenetration. It is not just a way of being in a common life(symbiosis).

In this context non-relation, sharing of qualities, presence (Parousia), union, communion, hierarchy, lasting and passing existence, non-existence and non-Being are predicates which are “included” in one Relation. Relation as the name of ontological way of Being is singular. We can not talk of relations (plural) as ontological way of one specific Being, because this presupposes multiple “entities”, multiple ontological existences. Ontologically, can only be only one “way of being” – one relation - for a specific ontological entity.

The specific God (our God) is LOVE. “Love” is the name of the ontological "way of being" of the specific God. IT IS NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The ontological entity GOD is not the creation/formation of an ideal Love. Also, there are not many ontological “way of being” of God, because this would present many deities, each for every distinct “way of being”. The one Love as one Relation/”way of being” of ONE God is separately realised as Ungeneration, Generation and Procession, from the specific Three Hypostases/“ways of being” (Father, Son and Spirit) in BEING in One specific ontological Love-Relation.

This is the paradox of Relation: to be a realization of a specific ontological self/hypostasis as its specific “way of being” in relation with otherness and at the same time to be realized from ontological otherness self/hypostasis as its separate, private, distinct “way of being” in the specific relation, without being (the Relation) separated in two ontological realizations but, on the contrary, in being absolutely single in its specific realization from the unsociability of its distinct realizations.

Non-relation, sharing of qualities, presence (Parousia), union, communion, hierarchy, lasting and passing existence, non-existence and non-Being as “criteria” are the comparative results of the comparison of the two specific distinct ontological hypostases. The “criteria” are absolutely important as they present the specific hypostases to be, ontologically, completely different “ways of being” in their privacy of realization of Relation but, at the same time present the paradox ontological uniqueness of Relation as a related “way of being” for both discrete hypostases who can not be realized without the specific otherness’ realization. So, the comparative results are many in the oneness of One Relation.

The Oneness of Relation as "a name" of our God, is actualized in Church in the phrase “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. “Father”, “Son”, ”Spirit” are the names of hypostases/“ways of being in Relation” for each Holy Person of the Holy Trinity. But, as the ontological Relation is One (our God is the ontological realization of BEING THE SPECIFIC ONE WAY OF BEING AS IT IS REALIZED FROM THE THREE HYPOSTASES) and because of the transcendency of Their “way of being”,which is incomprehensible, we use the expression which was taught by Christ: “In the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

Being and Relation can be distinguished in thought, but in no way separated ontologically.

“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
One “name” of BEING in Three Hypostases.
One specific ontological Relation realized in Three specific ontological Ways of Being.

May God bless us, all.

M.C. Steenberg

09-08-2005, 10:18 AM

Dear all,

I'm sorry to see that this discussion from June has died down. I was enjoying it very much, and looking forward to the promised continuation.

INXC, Matthew

Theopesta

09-08-2005, 11:25 AM

in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, since He possesses different natures, His natural wills, that is, His volitional faculties belonging to Him as God and as Man are also different. But since the subsistence is one, and He Who exercises the will is one, the object of the will the gnomic will(5), is also one, His human will evidently following His divine will, and willing that which the divine will willed it to will.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK II
CHAPTER XXII.
Concerning Passion and Energy.

we belive with what st. Jn. of Damascus said and this one of the theological lecture to the 1st, year studants in coptic institute in cairo, by His eminence metropolitan Bishoy

also, he give an idea about the natural wills and the desires of each rational complete nature.

H.H. the Alexandrian Patriark as the people ask him always to simplify and give the most important simple conclusion.

the coptic when is asked in egypt about the nature of christ from non christian, there is no chance to speak in the high theokogical level, the chance for smal simple reply propotional with a mind not spiritual.

those who want to study more can take the simple conclusion and search.

I write this message from myself no on of my fathers: H.H. the Alexandrian Patriark or & His eminence metropolitan Bishoy } know what I write.

also, my fathers H.H. the Alexandrian Patriark or & His eminence metropolitan Bishoy not say or even said in past any thing touch the christology of eastern orthodox.

they have one face as in ecumenical meetings they have the same with the people.

I myself trust and belive that the faith and the christology of the two orthodox families are one faith one God one Baptism

as a young nun my special apologizies to all of you, no one of our fathers said about you that you are Nestorian never.

if you (plural) cann't understand our culure and our atmosphere this not cause division.

many thanks to all of you,
in christ

Mina Monir

30-08-2005, 11:32 PM

1. dear VISILIS , WOULD YOU PLEASE COUNT TO ME A LIST OF YOUR CONSERVATIONS AGAINST ORIENTAL ORTHODOX DOCTRINE?

2. dear leandros , would you please help visilis to put the differences between our orthodox churches exactly in christology please?

3. dear Athanasius , would you please put to them the official agreement between the two orthodox families again ( i put it before but from long time ) to show to them that we have the same faith as in the 9th point.

Mina Monir

30-08-2005, 11:52 PM

dear moderator doctor Steenberg ,
firstly , I would like to thank you to open this area to discuss in love our thoughts , and I hope we keep the weather of love here. secondly, I have two points :
1) a Question : since the Seventh point in the official agreement states that the miaphysite terminology (and as your honor mentioned in your 6th lecture , and in the paper of Father prof.John romanides's one physis incarnate paper) is an orthodox terminology. why do a massive number of theologians of the eastern churches consider us MONOPHYSITES!! and that we follow eutiches !? what is the usage of the agreements then? if the publishing books of easterns are still same as before the agreements!
Russian church was one of the eastern churches signed on the official agreements ... however , I can count to you an infinite number of sites and books consider us monophysites... for the sake of whom? for the benefit of whom is keeping division ... Ecumenically , we are really very closed to lift anathemas ... the obstacle is in considering leo of rome is orthodox or not ... let's talk about that ... let's solve it , as the 1989 agreement solved and declared dioscorus as orthodox (and as consatninian pope Anatolius said in chalcedon council that he was rejected for law reasons ... not christological .)
here in egypt , very little number of greek orthodox churches in egypt , we respect them and consider them orthodox , HOWEVER THOUSANDS OF COPTS WERE SLAYED BY CONSTANTINIAN AND LEO'S FOLLOWERS ... we can forgive . I am a servant in my church and I teach the agreements and the unity ... does your church do? for the sake of unity , we need a better speach... a christological , scientific and practical speech ... enough stupid anathemas... we both MIAPHYSITES (AS Cyril said and the 7th point you said in the agreement) ... if physis means hypostasis .. we both Diophysis when physis means ousia ... we both miahypostasis mia physis tou theologo sesarkomene as St.Cyril stated in his letter to seccunsuss ... let's take the steps of H.E metropolitan bishoy .. and father John romanides and else of the courage theologians.
2) since your honor a professor in oxford university : consider me a student , I collected your lectures except the 8th and 9th , and If you can send them to me ... god blesses your efforts. beside , I want to find English translations to St.Cyril letters , and speacially thos to Bishop Succensus if it possible and thanks in advance.
in Christ
Mina Monir

Leandros Papadopoulos

11-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Dear Mina monir, in another thread you asked the following questions:

well , i think it is an amateur challenge... not puzzle. but it's ok, let me ask you a very simple question ... what does the word houmosion theologically mean?

secondly , could you find the contradiction between Miaphysitism and your previous trisagion quote? because you are now clashing with St.Cyril terminology.

By the way , another smaller question , is the virgin is the mother of god?
besides , you give me a difference in liturgical quote to refer to a difference in theology... very nice, would you please tell me DIRECTLY what is that difference?

ok, would you explain to me why your church uses the miaphysis terminology ? (revise the official agreement , point 7 ), and again , would you DIRECTLY tell me the difference in faith? after you give me the difference, would you please tell me if that contradicts the official agreements? (revise point 9 and comment if u can)

I will answer “to what does the word houmosion theologically mean?” at the end of this message.

In the “Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions in Brussel” web site, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev published an article (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx) with the title “Orthodox Worship as a School of Theology” and he put at the beginning the following quotation:

“All of our liturgical hymns are instructive, profound and sublime. They contain the whole of our theology and moral teaching, give us Christian consolation and instill in us a fear of the Judgment. He who listens to them attentively has no need of other books on the Faith”. by St Theophan the Recluse

In his article the young Bishop of the Russian Church Hilarion Alfeyev had included the following story: “Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those held in hell from its service books, since these prayers “contradict Orthodox teaching”. Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the Metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

During this conversation with the Metropolitan I expressed my thoughts on how one could go very far and even lose important doctrinal teachings in the pursuit of correcting liturgical texts. Orthodox liturgical texts are important because of their ability to give exact criteria of theological truth, and one must always confirm theology using liturgical texts as a guideline, and not the other way round. The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are differences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction.”

In this passage from his article, Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is expressing precisely the Orthodox mind.

Let us see now how the “miaphysis” doctrine of the Coptic Church is expressed through the modified Coptic Trisagion hymn. (Trisagion = three + agion (holy) = three times holy)

The original Trisagion Hymn, “Holy God, Holy Strong, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us”, in the Orthodox Church is explicitly Trinitarian: “Holy God” refers to the Father, “Holy Strong” refers to the Son and “Holy Immortal” refers to the Spirit. This is analysed in the document [/URL]that I submitted in the other thread.

And there is nothing more added in it because by referring to the Father, the Son and the Spirit, in an indirect way -imitating the angels as they were presented to the prophet Isaias to praise God [URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%206:1-3;&version=9;"](Isaiah 6:1-3)* (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4229/TRISAGION-23636.pdf), we have nothing else to say than “have mercy on us”. All that we know about the Trinity is that the Father is the Father of His Son, that the Son is the Son of His Father and that the Spirit of the Son proceeds from the Father and that the Son is of the substance of the Father. All these theological declarations and confessions are implied within the Trisagion. The Trisagion is repeated at least three times in order to be made clear that refers to Trinity.

Now, here comes the Coptic worship and introduces the additions:

Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy Immortal, Who was born of the Virgin, have mercy upon us.
Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us.
Holy God, Holy Almighty , Holy Immortal,Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, have mercy upon us

The three additional phrases are valid only for Christ: "Who was born of the Virgin" - "Who was crucified for us" - "Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven". Yet, the Coptic Church entitled them for the Trinity Persons in the Trisagion because the “miaphysis” doctrine is placed in practise through worshipping the divine Nature of Christ as being “born by the Virgin”, “crucified for us” and “rose from the dead ascended into heaven” unified with the human Nature of Christ as it is praised in the worship.

Under no circumstances the Orthodox Church would accept such an hymn.

So, the theology is presented in the worship. And the worship is inspired by the Spirit. And the Spirit sanctifies, perfects and completes the imperfect and the deficient and the mortal.

The Virgin is the Mother of God, but she is not the mother of the Father nor of the Spirit. She is the mother of Christ.

As for the “homoousion” it means “same-essence”. That the Son is of the same substance/essence of the Father. But Only the Son is God-man. Only the Son was born of the Virgin, crucified by us, and rose from the dead and ascended into heave, because only the hypostasis/person of the Son incarnated as a human being.

Dear sister in Christ, Mina Monir, as Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev said in his article “The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi” (how one prays is how one believes). As the Evagros Pontikos said: “He, who knows how to pray verily, knows to theologize verily”. Because of that the Vatican Church made several liturgical reforms and several followers of ecumenism are asking for ever more. But to change the prayers is like changing your faith. That is exactly the case in the additions in the Trisagion by the Coptic Church.

As for the official agreements between our Churches and the symphony in the terminology, these are historical consequences produced by events that are not in power by themselves to predicate the alleged union. We have large number of these symphonies and agreements also with the Vatican Church, but this has not produced unification.

As St Paul said: Test all things; hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonikians 5:21) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=50;)

May God bless us, all.

* Isaiah 6:1-3: In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Theopesta

11-09-2005, 04:24 PM

Quotation1:
from Brother Leandros no. 258 in orthodoxy and ecumanism:

But “communion” is not “union” of formality and verbal agreement.

truely from my view to what is the ecumanism the best for us is the true communion which arises from understanding and respection is the best and should be the aim not just formal agreement on papers

quotation 2:

The differences are not theological, mental and philosophical but practical and actual.

I feel your opinion to us changed to the better as this statment mean you belive we are orthodox. I donnot know the history of the coptic trisagion but I know we in it introduce worship to the incarnated GOD in one statment of 2 parts.

in the hour prayer book we have anthor trisagion said every hour after 41 time kyialyson O Lord have mercy we always say a trisagion like that of Isa 6 and as that of the 4 uncreated creatures in the Revelation4.

holy Holy Holy lord of hosts heavens and earth are full of your honor and Glory Have mercy upon us O god the father the pantocrator. OHoly trinity have mercy upon us O God the Lord of hosts be with us...

I need to understand HOW we pray for those that became in hell: there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power.

I feel this is patially the idea of apokatastasis which is refused in the writings of st. GREGORE of Nyssa if I am mistaken I hope you can correct me with very respection.

so I am suprising why the coptic Metropolitan promise he will study this question?.

what is the lex credendi what mean??

I hope we all begin new spritual year
IN ON GOD

Theopesta

11-09-2005, 07:22 PM

this is the complete text:

The Trisagion

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was born of the Virgin, have mercy on us. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us. Holy God, Holy mighty, Holy Immortal, Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, have mercy on us. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now, and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen. O Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, forgive our sins, Lord, forgive our iniquities. Lord, forgive our trespasses. Lord, visit the sick of Thy people, heal them for the sake of Thy Holy Name. Our fathers and brothers who have fallen asleep, repose their souls. O Thou who alone art without sin, help us and accept our prayers. For Thine is the glory, dominion, and triple holiness; Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord send Thy blessings. Amen.

I feel with the same impression which is present in that of the eastern ... honestly I donnot know why we speak about the incarnated GOD in the first context may be because we are near to the Neastorian people

also I want to say the MUSLIMS have the same dogma of nestorian about christ may our culture make the church take special provisions.

brother leandros I feel with your zealous spirit but I hope you feel with our life from one side

from other side to be honest the church try to purify all the books from all apocryphal dogma and traditions

in ONE CHRIST

Theopesta

11-09-2005, 08:01 PM

DEAR ALL
this is what we say every hour after the creed:

Lord have mercy (Kyrie eleison) 41 times

Holy, Holy, Holy, O Lord of Sabaoth, Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory and Thy majesty. Have mercy on us O God the Father Almighty. O Holy Trinity have mercy on us. O Lord of hosts be Thou with us. For we have no other helper in our tribulations and necessities but Thee.Loose, remit, and pardon, O God, our transgressions that we have committed voluntarily and involuntarily, consciously and unconsciously, hidden and manifest. O Lord, remit for the sake of Thy Holy Name, by which we are called, according to Thy mercy, O Lord, and not according to our sins.

Mina Monir

12-09-2005, 12:16 AM

Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell.

believe me it is funny, not true. there is nothing refers to that. and we pray for the dead in all prayers... between the 7 days prayers and liturgy

Mina Monir

12-09-2005, 12:35 AM

Secondly , I don't like escaping . I put certain questions and you did not answer. my main quesions were:

1) If Miaphysitism doctrine is different to you. explain that briefly. then why your church uses this terminology (revise the 7th point in the agreement well).

2) you escape in a very obvious way. I told you the story of (zero) and (one). the most thing i hate are : I.synonimous references and articles II. sohpystry and talkative poetry and literature. sorry, it is the nature of electronics...0 or 1 you accepted and said : honest challenge and i respect you. again:

3) mention the differences as points 1,2,3... then comment on the ninth point in the official agreement which stated that we are both equally orthodox and we did not break the apostolic tradition. if you want to continue the discussion using parts of articles , excuse me... it is not acceptable. we talked together for along time, and it is clear that our greek brother love poetry and literature. I do not have much time for unofficial considerations which does not depend on any official declaration , just anonimous articles.

I am not guilty if i asked you to put the points as 1,2,3 ... I don't have much time to read about a russian creature mentioned that he read in a -synonimous- coptic magazine something. I do not have much time too to read the dialogue between someone and another -synonimous- coptic bishop(if that was real). I have a dogma and agreements. sorry , would you continue in a specific scientific way as I told you please?

in this literatural way , we wont find an end. but using Boolean Algebra (01101101111) we shall finish every thing and unite together in christ, I did not find a conversation between two engineers had time more than 15 minutes... because they say right is right, wrong is wrong ... 0 1

in Christ
Mina

Mina Monir

12-09-2005, 12:39 AM

Yet, the Coptic Church entitled them for the Trinity Persons in the Trisagion because the “miaphysis” doctrine is placed in practise through worshipping the divine Nature of Christ as being “born by the Virgin”, “crucified for us” and “rose from the dead ascended into heaven” unified with the human Nature of Christ as it is praised in the worship.

believe me , believe me believe me ... your church is miaphysite ... believe meeeee
if you dont' , believe the official agreement and your patriarches who signed on the agreement.
http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/uhoh.gif

Leandros Papadopoulos

12-09-2005, 08:50 AM

Sister Theopesta,

lex credendi is "the law of belief" (the theology)
lex orandi "is the law of prayer" (the worship)

"lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi" means that "how one prays is how one believes".

This was phrased by Evagrios of Pontus, in the form: "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian".

You can find some works of Evagrios in this Site (http://home.zonnet.nl/chotki/evagrios1.htm).

Theopesta

12-09-2005, 09:54 AM

please I ask many apologizes if any thing hurt you I want to say mina is very kind not more.

please feel i am who speak and I am who ask forgivness from a brother always in help

I cannot enter this blessed form if any one pained

Leandros Papadopoulos

12-09-2005, 10:06 AM

Brother Mina Monir,

You are coming, message after message, to present the "common agreements” and the announcements from the join meetings as “official” documents. Well they are not. I am not saying that they are useless and that they are meaningless but they just present ONLY those that took part in these meetings and have signed them.

You are “accusing” me that I present my personal opinion. And you are right. But this is also the case with the participants in these meetings. For that, they say at the end of their common statements: “We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps: ….

Well, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are making “official” decisions with the Synodical system. That is, the Council of Bishops. And NONE Eastern Orthodox Church has adopted the recommendations of those common meetings with a Synodic resolution, as far as I know.

As there are distinguished Eastern Orthodox theologians and Patriarchs and Bishops that took part in the meetings and signed the common agreements, there are others, distinguished as well, that disagree with them. Exactly for this, the issue was never brought to any Church Council of Bishops.

Let me present some of the official counter statements to the common meetings’ statements:

After each announcement of the common meetings, the 20 monasteries of Mount Athos, after being thoroughly informed, were issuing official unanimous statements, where they presented their objections with theological and analytical documentation.

Theological Schools and theologians, Bishops and members of the Clergy made several signed official statements, stating that the common statements were not expressing the Church but only the “personal opinion” of the participants.

Orthodox conferences were being held where “official” statements were issued contraindicated that the “unitive” statements from the common meetings were not expressing the Orthodox mind.

In the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference that took place in University Of Thessaloniki in September 20-24, 2004, that was organized by the Department of Pastoral and Social Theology of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Society of Orthodox Studies, there was a resolution (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thess_conclusions.aspx) that passed unanimously indicated, among other issues, that: “An identical picture of both total fruitlessness and serious compromises in matters of the faith, exists in theological dialogue with those who were until recently considered (and are) Monophysites , but who now, out of "love", are characterized as "anti-Chalcedonians," "pre-Chalcedonians", "Ancient Eastern Churches," or, finally just "Orthodox." At the conference it was established that the dialogue conducted has yielded no positive results. The three joint "Statements" of the Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonians are unacceptable from an orthodox standpoint”. This statement is signed by the following officials, from several Orthodox Churches:

ACADEMIC COMMITTEE
Archpriest George Metallinos, Dean, School of Theology, University of Athens
Archpriest Theodore Zisis, Professor, School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
John Kornarakis, Prof. Em., School of Theology, University of Athens
Despo Lialiou, President, Dept. of Pastoral Theology, A.U.Th.
George Theodoroudis, Professor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE
President: Archimandrite Joseph, Abbot, Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Mount Athos
Vice-President: Archimandrite Sarantis Sarantos, Professor, Rizareios Ecclesiastical School
Secretary: Monk Arsenios Vliangoftis Th.D., B.A.
Members: Archimandrite Timothy Sakkas, Abbot, Holy Monastery of Parakletos
Archimandrite Mark Manolis, Dir., "Pan-Hellenic Orthodox Union"
Archimandrite Lavrentios Gratsias, Homilist, Diocese of Florina, Prespae and Eordea
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and St. Blasios
Metropolitan Amfilohije (Radovic) of Montenegro and Littoral
Metropolitan Nathanael of Nevrokop, Bulgaria
Metropolitan John of Velesson and Parabardario (F.Y.R.O.M.)
Bishop Panteleimon of Ghana, Patriarchate of Alexandria
Bishop Artemios of Raskas and Prizren, Orthodox Church of Serbia
Archimandrite Joseph, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Mount Athos
Archimandrite Demetrios Vasiliadis, Secretary, Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of the Jerusalem
Archimandrite Maximos Kyritsis, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Dionysios, Mt. Olympus
Archimandrite Christophoros Tsiakkas, M.A. Theology, U.K., Sec. of the Snyodal Cmte. on Heresies of the Church of Cyprus
Archimandrite Nikodemos Barousis, Abbot of the Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa Archimandrite Sarantis Sarantos, Professor, Rizareios Ecclesiastical School
Archimandrite Ioannikios Kotsonis
Hieromonk Alexy Karakallinos (Trader)
Hieromonk Neilos Vatopedinos, Professor, Law School, Univ. of Great Hellas, Calabria
Hieromonk Vessarion and Hierodeacon Leontios, Holy Archangels Monastery, Neamts, Romania
Archpriest George Metallinos, Dean, School of Theology, Univ. of Athens
Archpriest Theodore Zisis, Professor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
Archpriest George Dragas, Professor, Holy Cross Theological School, Boston
Archpriest Constantine Coman, Professor, Theological School, University of Bucharest
Archpriest Valentin Asmus, Professor, Theological School of Moscow
Archpriest Zourab Antadze, Orthodox Church of Georgia
Archpriest Constantine Stratigopoulos
Archpriest Lambros Fotopoulos, B.D., LL.B.
Fr. Paraskevas Agathonos D.D.
Fr. John Reeves, Orthodox Church in America
Fr. Christos Philiotis, D. D.
Fr. Peter A. Heers, Holy Diocese of Kastoria, Church of Greece
Geron Moses the Athonite Monk Arsenios Vliangoftis D.D.
Geron Lukas of Philotheou
Geron Nikodemos Bilalis, Theologian—Philologist
Despo Ath. Lialiou, D.D., President, Department of Pastoral Theology, A.U.Th.
Demetrios Tselengidis, Professor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
Anthony Papadopoulos, Prof. Em., Theological School, A.U.Th.
John Kornarakis, D.D., Prof. Em., School of Theology, Univ. of Athens
Jean- Claude Larcher, Professor of Philosophy
Theodore Yiangou, D.D. Associate Professor, Theological School, A.U.Th.
Nicholas Vasileadis, Theologian
Constantine Cavarnos, D.D.
Constantine Kotsiopoulos, D.D., Instructor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
Anthony Mironovitch, Professor, Department of Orthodox Theology, University of Bialistok
Panagiotis Sotirchos, Author-Journalist
Nicholas Selishchef, Member of the Russian Historical Society and Orthodox Journalist
Andreas Papavasileiou, D.D. Educator
Gregorios Liantas, candidate for D. Div.
Ivan Diatsekno, Professor, Ecclesiastical School "Ladder", Dneperopetrovsk
George Metallidis, D.D.
Christos Livanos, Chairman, Orthodox Brotherhood of "Saint Athanasius", Toronto, Canada
Vasilios Koukousas, D.D. – Educator
Radu Preda, D.D. Instructor, School of Theology, Clouz-Napoka, Romania
Soultana D. Lambrou, D.D., Associate Instructor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
Anna Karamanidou, D.D., Associate Instructor, School of Theology, A.U.Th.
Daphne Varvitsioti, Historian

I hope this answer to be as your requested, official enough by your standards.

May God bless us,all.

PS: Dear Mina Monir, I am also computer/network engineer like you and I understand the Boolean logic. But, boolean logic can not explain the Orthodox Pascal Troparion: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in the tombs bestowing life!".

I know that the Coptic Church has also the humn 'O monogenis': "Oo! Christ God Trampled down death by death, One of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Save us..."

How would we say in Boolean logic "trampled down death by death" (ethanatow thanatoon pa-ti-sass)? This is impossible for Boolean logic.

(Message edited by lpap on 12 September, 2005)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-09-2005, 04:51 PM

Dear Mina,

I think that the conversation that we are having on this thread shows the division that still remains between us. It is is true that there have been several consultations between us-and quite possibly these consultations reveal the ways in which we are close in Faith to each other. On the other hand it is very important for us to keep in mind that the final arbiter is always the Orthodox consciousness of the Church. And in this I believe that the examples Leandros points to are correct- there is a strong enough belief among us that still too many fundamental issues divide us.

For example above you write that, "believe me...your church is a miaphysite". However it is crucial to our theology and a mark of our Faith that what is one in Christ refers to the Divine hypostatic (person) and not His nature(s) which are two- Divine & human.

For us the Council of Chalcedon is central to our faith because all of the theologising of our Holy Fathers from the Apostolic to Sts Athanasios & Cyril of Alexandria, to the great Cappadocian Fathers- led naturally to its theological expression. And indeed its theological proclamation is fundamental because Chalcedon sums up and so perfectly expresses what an Orthodox definition of salvation in Christ means. It is due to this that one can say that our Faith is Chalcedonian.

This I consider to be one of the greatest temptations of any consultations we may have between us. Of course it is wonderful if we discover that we have after all of this time points of basic theological agreement we were not aware of before. But still there is the risk (more for us I think) that agreements can cover up the fact that there are those on the Oriental side who still have fundamental problems accepting Chalcedon.

This lack of acceptance points to an even deeper potential problem which arises from a misunderstanding about theological language. The language of hypostasis & physis refers to the crucial distinction between person and nature in Christ; and in turn this distinction refers to the distinction between person & nature in us who are human beings. One of the most crucial 'discoveries' of the Holy Fathers mentioned above was precisely about this distinction- that Christ is not just generic Divinity with Divine and human elements but rather a Divine Person Who is always the subject wherein are referred His dual natures. And this theological insight also has crucial implications about how salvation is established within a personal reality and not in a generic abstract 'reality'. In other words the language of Chalcedon is not just a stated theology of person and nature. Much more than this it is language with definite theological & anthropological implications- a definition as to what salvation really means. Only insofar as these are accepted will we find ourselves in one Faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: Mina- are you brother or sister? I somehow think you have a male name- Mina- which we would say as Minas (the martyr).

Mina Monir

13-09-2005, 07:29 AM

How would we say in Boolean logic "trampled down death by death" (ethanatow thanatoon pa-ti-sass)? This is impossible for Boolean logic.

this leads us to one of two :

1) the difference is in hymns only
2) the difference is in doctrine.

one of the relations will be applied : and , or , nor i believe (1) is the only difference ... if my suppose is wrong , then put 1,2,3,4... the points of difference.

if not , then it is shame on us to have division because of hymns. once, i'll draw to you its flowchart and send it .

Mina

Mina Monir

13-09-2005, 08:30 AM

about chalcedon , I remembered a nice note :

if it has a perfect teaching , why did you condemn theodoret of cyrus in 533 constantinople council , however leo restored him in 451?! if you revised the council's sessions , u will find disasters such as : theodoret entered the session and had a seat however he was condemned! leo,marcian,bulicharia wanted to excommunicate dioscorus, ok...no problem , but why they teard out his chin , and took out his teeth? however anatulius said he was orthodox in teaching chalcedon caused of a massacre called the alexandrian massacre... leo sent a bishop to rule alexandria, we refused and sent him back... we were punished... 5000 were killed in one day... what a council!
you did not treat nestor nor arius in that way.

for the third time I will say the coptic funniest story : when (Amr ibn el-Aas) the islamic general invaded egypt in 641 he searched for our patriarche , he didn't find him , when he asked about him, we told him the black truth... our pope Benjamin was kidnapped and sent to exile to force him to accept the tome of Leo.. till this moment, stupid muslims tell the copts that they set us free from the fanatic chalcedonians... and it is right(however they persecuted us till today) .

EP church excommunicated orthodox church of turkey because they held services using turkish language... doesn't that tell you how fanatic way they treated it?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-09-2005, 04:33 PM

Dear Mina, brother in Christ-

Thank you for the clarification about your name.

You have raised some very important points which are important to consider in this discussion (I mean for all of us).

If you would forgive my trying to put these into my own words:

1) what if any are the fundamental doctrinal differences which still divide us? There is still no great agreement on this as some feel we are in basic doctrinal agreement while others reject this.

A point here if I could- having been to the Holy Mt of Mt Athos twice and also knowing personally some of those involved in the recent Thessaloniki Conference on ecumenism I can say that they are not fanatics. Rather their motivation is a deep concern with a modernistic trend towards achieving a humanistic unity that is not really based on doctrinal unity. So I think it is wrong to just say that what divides us still is the result of fanaticism- real concern over doctrine still remains.

2. As I think your writing shows past history still hurts. From the experience of Church history though I think this hurt can be overcome once fundamental differences disappear.
You are in my prayers.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Leandros Papadopoulos

13-09-2005, 08:36 PM

First. for the forum members that do not know what Boolean logic is, let me explain that Boolean login is a mathematical system that expresses logical expressions in mathematical notation.

For instance: (study of subjects) AND (exams) = (graduation)

Dear Friends,

Definition from the The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt web site (http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/):

“Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).”

So, speaking with the Boolean language the Coptic doctrine is:

(Human nature) AND (Divine nature) = (ONE nature) (“AND” means "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" and " two natures did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye").

This is a misunderstanding. Let me explain why, and I will use the teaching of a man that Coptic Church is honouring as Saint, the Severus of Antioch. I quote from his writings: (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/severus_coll_3_letters.htm) “From the letter of the same holy Severus to Eupraxius the chamberlain, and about the questions which he addressed to him”, from his fourth answer:

“We term all mankind one nature, as in the text «Every nature of beasts and of birds and of things that are in the water is subjected and made subject to human nature»: and again we call a man 'nature', Paul for instance or Peter or James. Where we name all mankind one nature, we use the name 'nature' generically in place of 'essence': but, where we speak of one nature of Paul, we employ the name 'nature' in place of 'individual hypostasis'. So also, when we say that the Holy Trinity is one nature, as in the text, «In order that we may be sharers of the divine nature», we use the name 'nature' in place of the general designation 'essence' . And to say that the Holy Trinity is one nature is the same as to say that it is one Godhead, as we are in fact accustomed to call all mankind one nature. But, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', we say 'nature' in place of an individual designation, and thereby we denote the one actual hypostasis of the Word, like that of Paul or Peter or any single man. Therefore also, when we say 'one nature which became incarnate', we do not say so absolutely, but we say 'one nature of the Word himself', and clearly denote that it is one hypostasis. But again let no one stain the divine nature that is raised above all things with anything lowly taken from the example of Paul and Peter. For, although they are of the same essence, they differ not only in hypostases, but also in power and operation, and stature and shape, and in the various kinds of impulses that are in men's minds. The Holy Trinity however differs by the difference of hypostases only, and in every point is unvarying in equality, and in the fact that it is of the same essence. And avoid that poverty of the example which is not worthy of the Godhead, and do not conceive of the Word as without hypostasis, nor yet of the Spirit as being dissipated in the air.”

Let me repeat the most interesting quotation from the Coptic saint Severus of Antioch: “But, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', we say 'nature' in place of an individual designation, and thereby we denote the one actual hypostasis[person] of the Word, like that of Paul or Peter or any single man. Therefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate', we do not say so absolutely, but we say 'one nature of the Word himself', and clearly denote that it is one hypostasis[person]”.

In this context the above Coptic Boolean equation of Coptic doctrine is absolutely wrong. The correct Boolean equation, which is also supported by Severus is:

(Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (ONE HYPOSTASIS)

Instead of “miaphysis” doctrine, the Coptic Church should have adopted the “miahypostasis”/“one person” doctrine, which is also the Chalcedonian doctrine.

So the phrase of St Cyril 'one incarnate nature of God the Word' is explained, in this passage, by Severus in the right Orthodox way. But, it is not understood in the same context by the Coptic church which misunderstands the theology within the phrase.

Let me add a final remark according to your insistency of Boolean login.

The Coptic equation is “nature AND nature EQUALS Nature”. The Orthodox equation is “nature AND nature EQUALS Hypostasis/person”. Please follow, for the moment, my line of thought.

Coptic theology, presents that in humans “the nature of the soul unites with the physical earthly nature of the body to form a union of one nature, which is the human nature. This united nature does not include the body alone nor the soul alone but both together are combined without mixing, confusion, alteration or transmutation. No transmutation occurs of the soul into the body nor of the body into the soul, yet both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person. Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?!” (“The Nature of Christ”, by H. H. Pope Shenouda III) (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf). Here again, Coptic theology is putting into practice the equation “nature AND nature EQUALS nature”. This Coptic insistency to one nature comes from the inability to experience and express the uniqueness of hypostasis/personhood regardless of nature. Coptic theology is not aware that hypostasis/personhood is generated within a relation regandless of nature.

Let me give you an example: I have a twin brother, his name is Byron. There was a time, when we were being conceived, that we share the same body as we came from a single cell. Then after sequential multiplications the singular embryonic body (which was our common body) separated in two different bodies that eventually became my brother and me. Well, was Byron and me “one same person” at the time that we share a single embryonic body? No! Hypostasis/person is not the aftermath of a specified nature. Then, after my death, my natural body will be dissolved and I will become “bodiless”. But as Christ have said But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living.” (Mark 12:26-27) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:26-27;&version=50;)

Let me give you some Boolean equation about my way of being the specific hypostasis/person that I am:

(My brother’s and mine common natural body) AND (my soul)= Person Leandros - (at the embryonic stage)
(my natural body) AND (NOT (my brother’s body)) AND (my soul)= Person Leandros - (after being separated from my brother as twin embryo)
(my natural body) AND (my soul) = Person Leandros - (after my birth)
(my natural body) AND (my soul) AND (Holy Baptism) = Person Leandros - (after my baptism)
NOT (my natural body) AND (my soul)= Person Leandros - (after my death)
(my resurrected natural body) AND (my soul) = Person Leandros - (after resurrection)
So, as you see the natural synthesis in the first part of the equation has many alterations but in the second part there is a constant that is not a natural product but a hypostasis/person.

So, the equation of existence has in the one side the specific nature of the being and in the other side the specific hypostasis of the being. The correct equation of ontological existence is “nature AND nature EQUALS hypostasis/person”.

Implementing in Christ the respective equations we get the following:

Divine Nature of Logos = The second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God - (before incarnation)
(Divine Nature of Logos) AND (Christ’s human nature) = The second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God - (after incarnation)
(Divine Nature of Logos) AND (Christ’s resurrected human nature) = The second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God - (after Christ’s resurrection)
(Divine Nature of Logos) AND (Christ’s submitted human nature to the Father) = The second person of the Trinity, the Son of God -(after judgement)
In both case, in humans and in Christ, the right side of the equation, the hypostasis/personhood is NOT an aftermath of the left side, it is a constant. The existential equation of hypostasis is not, as it is presented by the Coptic theology, a natural effect of the natural “composition”.

I am the specific person Leandros, and I stand the same Person with the same specific hypostasis/personhood even as I share the same body with my brother Byron as an embryo, as I come by a body of my own, as I become reborn in the Holy Baptism, as I lose my body in my death and as I take another body in my future resurrection. In this natural change, where my hypostasis/personhood remains the same, my soul and my body also change ontologically at my Christian Baptism, according to Christ’s words: I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’. ” (John 3:3-7) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:3-7;&version=50;%20%E2%80%9CMost%20assuredly)

I am the specific hypostasis/person “Leandros” according to God’s pleasure. My hypostasis/personhood is not the “character” of mine that was created by the possession of my specific nature; it is the ontological identity that God created as a person in relation with Him through His Uncreated Energies. It is the ontological different person with whom God is related with, in discrimination with every other relation that He has with other human beings and creatures. For each and every human being the Father is related with an individual distinct personal relation through Christ, in Spirit.

When I was an embryo, in the first hours after the synchronous conception of my brother and mine, it was not possible to physically distinguish me from my brother Byron, because every cell of my embryonic body was his cell also, and every action and energy of my embryonic body was also his action and energy and there was not anything that my nature did that his nature did not act also and there was nothing that I was (in a natural sense) that he was not either. The difference between me and my brother in those hours was that we had different hypostases – we were different distinct persons- as we were both related with God in a separate individual way. He was my creator God and my brother’s creator God at the same time but we were created as two distinct persons and we were related with Him independently and isolated from each other, yet we shared the same identical natural body.

The hypostasis/personhood (mine and my brother’s, as well as everyone’s) was taken/created directly from the Creator God as a personhood/hypostasis that was being generated from the Uncreated Love and Goodness of the Trinity Persons. This personhood/hypostasis was brought to life in a specific body/soul as the existential realization of its ontological existence. The body/soul, the essence of the human being is not the “residence” of the personhood/hypostasis of the being. The personhood/hypostasis, being created by the Uncreated Energies of God, at once with its creation, with no time “in between”, comments being related with the wholeness of His Uncreated Energies, thus it instantly becomes embodied. For that, the hypostasis/person and the body are One being. Because, as the human person/hypostasis is related to God’s Uncreated Energies, it is “obliged” to be related to all of them. There is nothing that it is created by the Uncreated Energies of God of which the human person/hypostasis would be ontological ignorant.

So this distinct simultaneous is expressed by the Boolean equation:

Nature = Hypostasis/Person

This is not an equation of coidentity. The nature is of different “quality” of the Hypostasis/Person and the equation is not a symbol of identicalness. The equation is a symbol of semantics that presents the ontological union in the one relation with God the Creator, which is one and the same for the human nature as well as for the human hypostasis/person. This one relation is a relation of persons. The human being, as a hypostasis/person existing in its specific body, is related with God in a personal relation with the Trinity Persons, through Christ, in Spirit with the Father taking part in God’s Uncreated Energies (Uncreated Energies: essence-giving, life-giving, sanctification–giving).

That is why the Holy Relics of the Saints are sanctified. In them the equation “nature=hypostasis/person” is presented in the form “sanctification of the nature=sanctification of hypostasis/person”. The personal relation of the hypostasis/person of the Saints with God is the same personal relation of their body/soul with God. And while the human body/nature is not logical, still it is assumed by the Spirit (Who is a Person) and it is glorified.

This created glorification of humans is not the case in Christ's incarnation, because the saints become hypostatically and naturally glorified but Christ IS hypostatically and naturally glorified as the Son of God. The saints are adopted as sons, but Christ IS the Son. His hypostasis/personhood IS the Son of God and His body/soul also IS the Son of God, according to the equation nature=hypostasis. The relations that the hypostasis is related with are the same for the nature.

For that we take, in the Holy Communion, His human Blood and His human Body and through Them we are related to the Trinity Life that His Hypostasis/Person is related as the second Person of the Trinity, the Son, before ages in being of the same essense with the Father and by the pleasure of His Father.

This theology of existence that has been formulated by the Fathers of the Church, is presented by the Chalcedonian Christology. The expression (“Christ’s human nature” AND “Son’s divine nature”) had not equated to a “nature”, but to a Hypostasis/Personhood, the Son.

So, the difference between Chalcedonians and Copts/“miaphysites” is expressed in the following equations (this is a semantic presentation):

Chalcedonians: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one hypostasis of the Son)

Coptic/“miaphysite”: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one nature of two)

May God bless us, all.

PS: After a remark from Fr Raphael Vereshack(10 posts below this point), I think that I must add the following clarification:

the "AND" mark in the above Boolean equations do not have the meaning of addition. For example the clause "nature1 AND nature2 EQUALS nature3" in Boolean mathematics does not have the meaning "nature1 + nature2 = nature3".

The "AND" means: "nature1 as affirmative logical event" [AND the simultaneous distinct presence of] "nature2 as affirmative logical event" is equivelant to "nature3 as affirmative logical event". So the boolean "AND" mark has the meaning: "if and only if all related by AND mark logical events are true then the equivelant event is also true".

Mina Monir

13-09-2005, 08:57 PM

dear Leandros , you are getting back to the Christological issue. for the last time , I will discuss it if it is the cause of division in your opinion, but please give me two days because I have really problems with papers and my ID . so, I get back home late and tired... I will print your message and study it in a very careful way hoping that there is no more differences out of it , and I think you did not point ... I only now recommend VERY important to read the Prof.John Romanides's paper (one physis hypostasis for god incarnate), and the discussion between him and the fathers of the dialogue committie. your equation nature+nature=nature as you referred to the coptic christology is totally balanced if thr RHS nature(hypostasis) does not equal the LHD nature (ousia)

So, the difference between Chalcedonians and Copts/“miaphysites” is expressed in the following equations (this is a semantic presentation):

Chalcedonians: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one hypostasis of the Son)

Coptic/“miaphysite”: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one nature of two)

i'm happy to get that final conclusion. again, definition of nature on the RHS doesn't equal nature in the LHS you finished it by your equations... i accept that chalcedonian equation because it equals totally the miaphysite equation... the problem is in definition , I will send the detail discuss through these days if I stayed alive , or out of prison as I'm going to kill an employed person in my college to stop her from cooking the Okra on my papers in the official work hours ( I love muslims !!!!!!!!!!)

Mina Monir

13-09-2005, 09:02 PM

also , I'd like to recommend reading the sixth lecture of Dr.Steenberg's Oxford lectures because it discusses briefly that point... leandros all what you said I accept it...same meaning believe me... different definitions of the term Physis... not more... till I prepare a detailed answer , I hope his Rev.DR.Steenberg shares us the discussion because he knows vry well the terminological problem... till this , Have a nice time

in Christ ,
Mina... the ground citizen http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

Theopesta

13-09-2005, 11:02 PM

forgive me zealous brother leandros

the coptic encyclopedia as I know not accurate in the theology and H.H. said we not use it as theological source. as I know this encyclopedia 6 large volume they were given to H.H. to review them after printing. I see the 4th volume {the leter D,E} I find many and many mistakes then I know from the coptic Institute liberery that H.H. leave his recommodation "we not depend in it theologically"

I am not yet complete reading your post.
in christ

Theopesta

13-09-2005, 11:56 PM

quotation:

Coptic/“miaphysite”: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one nature of two)

I am not have any objection about what was said by br. leandros except:
1- I am not and will not understand Boolean login
2- we not belive with one nature we belive with:

one incarnated nature out of two nature and present in one Hpostasis/person

this what I know. I am not interested in reading the ecumanical deliberations and I know one by one the practical communion between us difficult at least because we are different in the education which reflex on the terminology only but not in the deep faith

I am not utilitarian person to say all what you say not differ not refused

I hope the disscusion go in peace as you and mina are zealous and pure not more

many thanks to our father RAFIAL to your kind words and trying to nicing the air

pray for me
in one christ

Theopesta

14-09-2005, 12:56 AM

we have a specific prayer to the deprated in each liturgy:

"litany of the deprated" we not know that who leave the world leave it in any case GOD only know whatever we know about this person ... so we pray to the rest of his soul according to the mercey of god and give us all forgivness as we all sinners.

no man without sin so we ask from GOD to rest the soul of dead in the bosom of Abraam, ISaac,Jacob in the paradise in the light of the saints and if they fall in laziness GOD repose them and forgive as no one is pure even his life is one day on the earth

but if any one dead in anathemized state as:

1- in marring his sister in law and refuse the advise of the church he persist in conforting all the canons of the church the church refuse to pray on him at least to prevent the others from falling in this taboo or forbiden thing according to all the fathers all the ecumanical councels

2- the church not pray on the sucidal and that kill himself as he lose his faith in the GOD

ALSO, origin learn with the apokatastasis ... many of the egyptian still founded in his writing ... the church declare officially we not belive in repentance after death GOD in his kindness give us all chances and not allow with death except every one take all the possible chance . those whom we as human not know them go to hell they not return to the paradise again. from this dogma we not pray to god to save those who go to the hell

in ONE CHRIST

Theopesta

14-09-2005, 03:03 AM

near the end of each litergy after the consecration and the invocation of the holy spirit we said this prayer:

The Commemoration Of The Saints

PRIEST: As this, O Lord, is the command of your Only-Begotten Son, that we share in the commemoration of your saints, graciously accord, O Lord, to remember all the saints who have pleased you since the beginning: our holy fathers the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles, the preachers, the evangelists, the martyrs, the confessors and all the spirits of the righteous who were consummated in the faith. Most of all, the pure, full of glory, ever-virgin, holy Theotokos, Saint Mary, who in truth, gave birth to God the Logos. And Saint John the forerunner, Baptist and martyr; Saint Stephen the archdeacon, the protomartyr; the beholder-of-God Saint Mark, the evangelist the apostle and martyr; the patriarch Saint Severus; our teacher Dioscorus; Saint Athanasius the Apostolic; Saint Peter the priest-martyr and the high priest; Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Theodosuius, Saint Theophilus, Saint Demetrius, Saint Cyril, Saint Basil, Saint Gregory the theologian, Saint Gregory the wonder-worker, Saint Gregory the Armenian; the three hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicea, the one hundred at Ephesus; our righteous father great Abba Antony, the righteous Abba Paul, the three saints Abba Macarii, and all their children the cross-bearers, our father Abba John the hegomen; our father Abba Pishoi the righteous perfect man, the beloved of our good Saviour; our father Abba Paul of Tammoh and Ezekiel his disciple; my masters the Roman fathers Saints Maximus and Domitius; the forty nine martyrs the elders of Shiheet; the strong Saint Abba Moses; John Kame the priest; our father Abba Daniel the hegomen; our father Abba Isidore the priest; our father Abba Pachom, of the Koinonia, and Theodore his disciple; our father Abba Shenoute the archimandrite and Abba Wissa his disciple. And all choir of your saints, through whose prayers and supplications, have mercy on us all and save us, for the sake of your holy name, which is called upon us.

DEACON: Let those who read, recite the names of our holy fathers, the patriarchs who have fallen asleep; O Lord repose their souls and forgive us our sins.

PRIEST: (the priest says the following Diptych inaudibly) Remember also, O Lord, all those who have fallen asleep and reposed in the priesthood and in the order of laity. Graciously, O Lord, repose all their souls in the bosom of our holy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sustain them in a green pasture, by the water of rest in the paradise of joy, the place our of which grief, sorrow and groaning have fled away in the light of your saints.

PRIEST: Those, O Lord, and everyone whose names we have mentioned, and those whose names we have not mentioned, those whom each one has in mind, and those who are not in our minds, those who have fallen asleep and reposed in the faith of Christ, graciously, O Lord, remember the souls of your servants (here the priest mentions the names of the departed).

DEACON: Pray for our fathers and brethren who have fallen asleep and reposed in the faith of Christ since the beginning, our holy fathers the archbishops, our fathers the bishops, our fathers the hegomens, our fathers the priest, our brethren the deacons, our fathers the monks and our fathers the laymen, and for the full repose of the Christians, that Christ our God may repose all their souls in the paradise of joy, and we too accord mercy unto us and forgive us our sins.

PRIEST: Graciously, O Lord, repose all their souls in the bosom of our holy fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sustain them in a geen pasture, by the water of rest in the paradise of joy, the place our of which grief, sorrow and groaning have fled away in the light of your saints.

CONGREGATION: May their holy blessing be with us. Amen. Glory to you, O Lord. Glory be to you. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord bless us. Lord repose them. Amen.

PRIEST: Those, O Lord, whose souls you have taken, repose them in the paradise of joy, in the region of the living forever, in the heavenly Jerusalem, in that place, and we too, who are sojourners in this place, keep us in your faith, and grant us your peace unto the end.

CONGREGATION: As it was, and shall be, form generation to generation, and unto the ages of all ages. Amen.

PRIEST: Lead us throughout the way into your kingdom, that as in this so also in all things your great and holy name be glorified, blessed and exalted, in every thing honoured and blessed, together with Jesus Christ, your beloved son and the Holy Spirit.

Peace be with all. Irini pasi.

CONGREGATION:

And with your spirit. Ke to Pnevmati soo.

please fa. Rafial and br.leandros the ecumanism not the aim but we can be in full communion by spirit not by verbal agreements and papers

for the christian love agapy please read this part till I find the litany of deprated

in any case I am gratful your generosity
in one christ in front of one throne

Theopesta

14-09-2005, 03:12 AM

before each reading of the Gospel this prayer is said:

PRIEST (Inaudibly) O You, who are long-suffering, abundant in mercy and true, receive our prayers and supplications, receive our petitions, repentance and confession upon your holy undefiled altar in heaven; may we be made worthy to hear your holy gospel and may we keep your precepts and commandments and bring forth fruit therein a hundred-fold, sixty-fold and thirty-fold, in Christ Jesus our Lord. Remember, O Lord the sick of your people that you have visited them with mercies and compassion, heal them. Remember, O Lord, our fathers and brethren who are traveling, bring them back to their own in peace and safety. Remember O Lord, the air of heaven and the fruits of the earth, bless them. Remember, O Lord, the water of the rivers, bless them, raise them to their measure according to your grace. Remember, O Lord, the seeds, the herbs and the plants of the field, bless them. Remember, O Lord, the safety of the people and the beasts. Remember, O Lord, the safety of this place, which is yours, and every place and every monastery of our Orthodox fathers. Remember, O Lord, the king (president) of our land, your servant, keep him in peace, justice and might. Remember, O Lord, those who are in captivity, save them all.

Remember, O Lord, our fathers and brethren who have fallen asleep and reposed in the Orthodox faith, repose all their souls. Remember, O Lord, those who have been brought unto you these gifts, those on whose behalf they have brought, and those by whom they have been brought, give them all the heavenly reward.

Remember, O Lord, those who are distressed in hardships and oppressions, save them from all their hardships. Remember, O Lord, the catechumens of your people, have mercy upon them; confirm their faith in you; uproot all traces of idolatry form their hearts. Your law, your fear, your commandments, your truths, and your holy precepts, establish in their hearts. Grant that they know the steadfastness of the preaching they have received. And in the set time, may they be worthy of the washing of the new birth for the remission of their sins; as you prepare them to be a temple of your Holy Spirit, by the grace, compassion, and philanthropy (love of mankind) of your only-Begotten Son, our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Through whom the glory, the honour, the dominion, and the adoration are due unto you, with him and the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giver who is of one essence with you, now and at all times and unto the age of all ages. Amen.

Theopesta

14-09-2005, 08:59 AM

in every midnight prayer we pray for god to support those who are in the final breathes and help us in the death and after death as will we have no repentance no chance after death

Theopesta

14-09-2005, 09:03 AM

I want to ask a question :

the praises of the 4 uncreated creature for whom?

I feel it is for the incarnated God but I want to know if this correct or not

in ONE CHRIST PERFECT IN HIS HUMANITY AND PERFECT IN HIS DIVINITY THE ONE INCARNATED GOD

pray to me

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-09-2005, 04:10 PM

Maybe there is something I am not understanding here but it is not correct to say,

Chalcedonians: (Human nature of Christ) AND (Divine nature of Christ) = (one hypostasis of the Son)

The Incarnate Christ is not the result of the addition of His Divine and human natures for this overlooks the fact that Christ is enhypostatic- that is it is the pre-eternal Person of Christ Who is always the subject wherein are enhypostatised his Divine & human natures.

This again alerts us to the crucial fact that Christ is not the result of 'adding together' in a generic sense what is divine & human. Rather the starting point of our theology is the fact of the pre-eternal Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who following the pre-eternal counsel of His Father through the Holy Spirit takes on a fully human nature from His Most-pure Mother. Why this is crucial is because this refers to the personal providence of the Holy Trinity in love for mankind. Our theology is real & personal- not abstract.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Leandros Papadopoulos

14-09-2005, 05:03 PM

Maybe there is something I am not understanding here but it is not correct to say...

Bless Father Raphael Vereshack,

first of all, I know that it is not possible to express theology through mathematics. But I have tried to "speak" with Mina in his preferred "language", although I understand that mathematics are not the proper language.

You point is right. But the equation has a different meaning. The "AND" in the Boolean mathematical system does not mean "Addition". In Boolean mathematics the "AND" is the mark of logical association of distinct logical clauses/events that should be true simultaneously.

For example: (sunshine) AND (mood for outing) = (picnic)

So the equation should be read as:

(Human nature of Christ) [AND the simultaneous distinct presence of] (Divine nature of Christ) = (one hypostasis of the Son)

Once again, I do not like talking like a mathematician but this was the demand of Brother Mina.

Your clarification is most welcomed.

Patrick Walsh

14-09-2005, 05:34 PM

The boolean "OR" is addition, and the boolean "AND" is multiplication. True is nonzero, usually expressed simply as "1" and False is 0.

For instance:

True AND True = 1 * 1 = 1 = True.
True AND False = 1 * 0 = 0 = False.
True OR True = 1 + 1 = 1 = True (either zero or nonzero are meaningful).
True OR False = 1 + 0 = 1 = True.

I once heard a Lutheran Pastor express the mystery of the Holy Trinity as

"The Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit EQUALS GOD." http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

He carefully explained beforehand that the Boolean AND meant "multiplied by". The only reason I did not laugh is that he actually took himself seriously.

I was a third year Math Student in the University and had started teaching "College Algebra" at the time. I commented to him, "Your math was correct, but you need to work on your word problems."

I could have pointed him to Goedel's Theorem which states that any logical system must be incomplete (i.e., must always have a set of underlying assumptions which cannot be proven) and inconsistent (i.e., must always have some points where contradictory conclusions arise.) but that would be hard to do in a queue of people waiting to shake his hand as they leave the building.

Just trying to inject some humor into what has become a rather contentious thread.

Feofil

Leandros Papadopoulos

14-09-2005, 06:27 PM

I only now recommend VERY important to read the Prof.John Romanides's paper (one physis hypostasis for god incarnate), and the discussion between him and the fathers of the dialogue committee.

Dear Mina,

I have read almost all books of Fr Romanides, and his articles in romanity.org site. I think that he is one of greatest Greek theologians of the 20th century. Another great Greek theologian, Fr George Metallinos, Dean of the Athens University School of Theology, said in the memorial of Fr Romanides: “his doctorate dissertation on the “Original Sin” opened new paths in our theology (as a science)…. When reviewing his theological opus – educative, literary and militant – we are naturally compelled to refer to a pre-Romanides and post-Romanides era. Because he introduced a real section and a rift in our scholastic past, which resembled a Babylonian captivity for our theology. His dissertation decisively sealed this revivalist course, to the degree that even those who for various reasons criticized or ideologically opposed him, betrayed in their writings the influence of father John in their theological thought...”

Having said that, Fr Romanides has accepted very strong criticism for his position and his suggestions at the join meetings with the anti-Chalcedonians. In the romanity.org site Fr Romanides has published in the Greek section an article as an answer against this criticism with the title: “Are they not, and were they not, the anti-Chalcedonians, Orthodox?” (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.e.22.oi_antixalkidonoi_den_isan_kai_den_einai_ orthodoxoi.htm) Unfortunately he did not published the same article in the English section.

In the first paragraph of this article, Fr Romanides writes:

“Conspiracy? There is a letter in circulation with the title “The Chalcedonias are not, and they were not, Orthodox. An answer to the non-orthodox point of view of Fr Romanides”. The solution to the issue of ‘whether the anti-Chalcedonias are Orthodox or not’ is not going to be solved either by me (Fr Romanides) nor by the anonymous writers of this letter against me. This is due to the fact that when a dialogue is taking place it is not accustomed for the one part in the dialogue to accuse the other as heretic. The historical positions are taken for granted. If, in the end, a mutual recognition is going to be made this is not an issue for either the parties in the dialogue, neither for the writers of this letter against me. Each Church, through the respective entitled bodies, that is the Synod (Council of Bishops) will decide on the issue.”

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-09-2005, 06:59 PM

True AND True = 1 * 1 = 1 = True.
True AND False = 1 * 0 = 0 = False.
True OR True = 1 + 1 = 1 = True (either zero or nonzero are meaningful).
True OR False = 1 + 0 = 1 = True.

I once heard a Lutheran Pastor express the mystery of the Holy Trinity as

"The Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit EQUALS GOD." :-)

He carefully explained beforehand that the Boolean AND meant "multiplied by". The only reason I did not laugh is that he actually took himself seriously.

Isn't that the main point for us? - that theologically 1= 3; 3=1; and 1 Christ = 2 natures.
But yet this is not a mathematical formulation for us. There is a writing of St Gregory of Nyssa called, "That There are Not Three Gods."

In Christ- Fr Raphaelhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Owen Jones

15-09-2005, 01:06 PM

Any theological consultation that employs a "methodology" cannot possibly be of the Holy Spirit.

Theopesta

15-09-2005, 02:02 PM

her the 3 Divine litergy useing now in the coptic church
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/index.html
pray for me

Theopesta

15-09-2005, 06:02 PM

the zealous young MINA

we are in need to: restore the years that the locust has eaten

then we will know the past not a history pass we will not the past is the will of GOD

"my great army which I sent among you." JEOL 2: 25

then we will know how to deal with it with pure heart at this moment the full communion will be achived by the act of the HOLY SPIRIT not by the agreement on papers

I hope you begin your studying year in peace and calm
in one god
pray for me

Theopesta

16-09-2005, 10:05 AM

IF you please all

I try to find the history of the Trisagion in our traditional box and find that: 1- Joseph of Arimathaea, while he hold the holy body of Jesus with his hand and was wrapping him in the linen he said:

where your mighty O Lord!
he hear the angles praise saing:
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal
Joseph of Arimathaea exclaimed with rejoicing:
who was crucified for us,have mercy upon us.

2- st. Ignatius theoforos have written it and arrange its use in churches ... st. PETER have admitted it to all syrian churches and order them to say it before the GOSPEL reading

3- I read that St. JOHN CRYSOSTOME confess with it in his writings its used in his era

4- it is present till the 5 ecumanical councel if I am not mistaken

5- arians canceled the secand parts which said for the humanity of the 2nd PERSON in the TRINITY in the 5th century the arians were spread very much they said we make the divinity suffer ... so the western in trying to avoid this condamination they not refuse these parts

with all respection to the struggle of every church to protect her faith I am intrested to know more. finally when we say it with the 4 uncreated heavenly creature we not fall in mistaken ...when the eastern orthodox say it with the SERAPHIM and CHERBIM. the two family in the same area of HOLYINESS covering with the rainpow

in one christ

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-09-2005, 01:44 PM

Dear Theopesta Dem,

When you write, "we say it with the 4 uncreated heavenly creature" instead of "uncreated" perhaps you mean bodiless? Only God is uncreated. When referring to the heavenly powers in English we usually use the words- bodiless or incorporeal.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Leandros Papadopoulos

16-09-2005, 02:03 PM

Dear friends,

The Coptic Trisagion has the following historical explanation:

Peter the fuller (or Petrus the fuller) became patriarch of Antioch 471–488, took his surname from his former trade as a fuller of cloth. He is believed to originate from the order of the Acoimetae (sleepless), who were being called sleepless because they were Orthodox monks who watched for the Chalcedonian doctrine implementation and they affront any nonChalcedonian appearance. He was expelled thence for dissolute life and heretical doctrine, passed over to Constantinople, where under ignoble situations he became favorite of Zeno, the future emperor, the son-in-law of Leo, and through him he managed to gain ecclesiastic power and finally he followed Zeno to Antioch where he has been put as commander of the East.

In 469-470 Peter made it to the Patriarchic throne of Antioch, after having expelled the Patriarch Martyrius as Nestorian. When established as patriarch, Peter at once declared himself openly against the council of Chalcedon, and added to the Trisagion the words "Who was crucified for us," which he imposed as a test upon all in his patriarchate, anathematizing those who declined to accept it. According to the Synodicon, he summoned a council at Antioch to give synodical authority to this novel clause.

The deposed Martyrius went to Constantinople to complain to the emperor Leo, by whom, through the influence of the patriarch Gennadius, he was courteously received; a council of bishops reported in his favour, and his restoration was decreed. But notwithstanding the imperial authority, Peter's personal influence, supported by the favour of Zeno, was so great in Antioch that Martyrius's position was rendered intolerable and, wearied by violence and contumely, he soon left Antioch, abandoning his throne again to the intruder. Leo was naturally indignant at this audacious disregard of his commands, of which he was apprised by Gennadius, and he despatched an imperial decree for the deposition of Peter and his banishment to the Oasis.

According to Theodorus Lector, Peter fled, and Julian was unanimously elected bishop in his room, A.D. 471, holding the see until Peter's third restoration by Basiliscus in 475. During the interval Peter dwelt at Constantinople, in retirement in the monastery of the Acoimetae, his residence there being connived at on a pledge that he would not create further disturbances. During the short reign of the usurper Basiliscus (Oct. 475–June 477) the fortunes of Peter revived. Under the influence of his wife Basiliscus declared for the Monophysites, recalled Timothy Aelurus, patriarch of Alexandria, from exile, and by his persuasion issued an encyclical letter to the bishops calling them to anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon. Peter gladly complied, and was rewarded by a third restoration to the see of Antioch, A.D. 476. Julian was deposed, dying not long after. Peter on his restoration enforced the addition to the Trisagion, and behaved with great violence to the orthodox party, crushing all opposition by an appeal to the mob, whom he had secured by his unworthy arts, and who confirmed the patriarch's anathemas by plunder and bloodshed.

Once established on the patriarchal throne, he was not slow to stretch its privileges to the widest extent, ordaining bishops and metropolitans for all Syria. The fall of Basiliscus, A.D. 477, involved the ruin of all who had supported him and been promoted by him. Peter was one of the first to fall. In 485 for the last time Peter was replaced on his throne by Zeno on his signing the Henoticon. He at once resumed his career of violence, expelling orthodox bishops who refused to sign the Henoticon and performing uncanonical ordinations, especially that of the notorious Xenaias (Philoxenus) to the see of Hierapolis. He was condemned and anathematized by a synod of 42 Western bishops at Rome A.D. 485, and separated from Christian communion. He retained, however, the patriarchate at Antioch till his death, in 488, or according to Theophanes, 490 or 491. One of his latest acts was the unsuccessful revival of the claim of the see of Antioch to the obedience of Cyprus as part of the patriarchate. After long debate the council of Ephesus in 431 had declared the church of Cyprus autocephalous.

The above passage is from a historical presentation compiled by many sources (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.p.html?term=petrus+surnamed+fullo). Of course the non-Chalcedonian interpretation of the events is different.

Returning to the issue of modified Trisagion, in the following orthodox article (http://www.anastasis.org.uk/gibbon_trisagion.htm) it is presented how fanaticism could bring disaster to the people of the Church.

As for the theological significance of the alteration of the Trisagion, I will submit a message in another thread.

(Message edited by lpap on 16 September, 2005)

Theopesta

16-09-2005, 03:20 PM

father RAF. many thanks
forgive me all as my mention incorporeal many apologizes
in one christ

Theopesta

16-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Br. leandros
I respect what you write but I am not know any thing about Peter the fuller
I speak about st. PETER the apostle as I know it is present from the 1st church

but with all respection to what you say

in one christ

Leandros Papadopoulos

16-09-2005, 04:26 PM

finally when we say it with the 4 uncreated heavenly creature we not fall in mistaken

Sister Theopesta,

Let us see how John presents the four living creatures in Revelation 4:8-11:

“and before the throne was something like a sea of glass, similar to crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living beings full of eyes in front and in back. The first living being was like a lion, the second living being was like a calf, the third living being had a face of a man, and the fourth living being was like a flying eagle.

And the four living beings, each one having six wings apiece, were full of eyes around and within. And they never rest day or night, saying:

"Holy, holy, holy,
Holy, holy, holy,
Holy, holy, holy,

Lord God Almighty, He Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come!"

Whenever the living beings give glory and honor and thanksgiving to Him that sits on the throne, to Him that lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him that sits on the throne and they worship Him that lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

"You are worthy, our Lord and God, the Holy One, to receive the glory and the honor and the power; because You created all things, and by Your will they existed and they were created."

In this passage, the four living creatures/beings and the twenty-four elders are glorifying and praising the Holy Triune, not just the Second person, but the One God, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The phrase “He Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come” is a reference to the answer that Moses received from GOD: “I am, Who I am” (in greek: O WN).

The phrases: [revelation 4:8]:"He Who was, and Who is, and Who is to come" and in [revelation 1:8]:"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "He Who is and He Who was and He Who is to come, The Almighty." (o wn, o ein, kai o erxomenos) do not refer to the presence of the Son as Son of Man according to "economy" (eikonomia), but they refer to the uncreated before and beyond time presence of the Son inseparably from the Father and the Spirit, as Son of God. Thus, these phrases refer to the Holy Trinity, and not just to the Son.

So, the Coptic Trisagion is not following the Trisagion of the four living creatures as it is presented in Revelation, chapter 4.

May god bless us, all.

Theopesta

17-09-2005, 11:29 AM

with all humble heart I will try to know why this happen in the Trisagion??

pray for me
IN ONE GOD

Leandros Papadopoulos

20-09-2005, 07:28 PM

Dear Friends,

Let me submit the Orthodox Christian doctrine of Incarnation of Christ.

From St John of Damascus “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.i.html), CHAPTER XI, Concerning the Nature as viewed in Species and in Individual, and concerning the difference between Union and Incarnation: and how this is to be understood, “The one Nature of God the Word Incarnate.” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iii.xi.html):

Nature is regarded either abstractly as a matter of pure thought (for it has no independent existence): or commonly in all subsistences of the same species as their bond of union, and is then spoken of as nature viewed in species: or universally as the same, but with the addition of accidents, in one subsistence, and is spoken of as nature viewed in the individual, this being identical with nature viewed in species. God the Word Incarnate, therefore, did not assume the nature that is regarded as an abstraction in pure thought (for this is not incarnation, but only an imposture and a figment of incarnation), nor the nature viewed in species (for He did not assume all the subsistences): but the nature viewed in the individual, which is identical with that viewed in species. For He took on Himself the elements of our compound nature, and these not as having an independent existence or as being originally an individual, and in this way assumed by Him, but as existing in His own subsistence. For the subsistence of God the Word in itself became the subsistence of the flesh, and accordingly “the Word became flesh” clearly without any change, and likewise the flesh became Word without alteration, and God became man. For the Word is God, and man is God, through having one and the same subsistence. And so it is possible to speak of the same thing as being the nature of the Word and the nature in the individual. For it signifies strictly and exclusively neither the individual, that is, the subsistence, nor the common nature of the subsistences, but the common nature as viewed and presented in one of the subsistences.

Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is something quite different. For union signifies only the conjunction, but not at all that with which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just the same as if one said “the putting on of man’s nature”) signifies that the conjunction is with flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the heating of iron implies its union with fire. Indeed, the blessed Cyril himself, when he is interpreting the phrase, “one nature of God the Word Incarnate,” says in the second epistle to Sucensus, “For if we simply said ‘the one nature of the Word’ and then were silent, and did not add the word ‘incarnate,’ but, so to speak, quite excluded the dispensation, there would be some plausibility in the question they feign to ask, ‘If one nature is the whole, what becomes of the perfection in humanity, or how has the essence like us come to exist?’ But inasmuch as the perfection in humanity and the disclosure of the essence like us are conveyed in the word ‘incarnate,’ they must cease from relying on a mere straw.” Here, then, he placed the nature of the Word over nature itself. For if He had received nature instead of subsistence, it would not have been absurd to have omitted the “incarnate.” For when we say simply one subsistence of God the Word, we do not err. In like manner, also, Leontius the Byzantine considered this phrase to refer to nature, and not to subsistence. But in the Defence which he wrote in reply to the attacks that Theodoret made on the second anathema, the blessed Cyril says this: “The nature of the Word, that is, the subsistence, which is the Word itself.” So that “the nature of the Word” means neither the subsistence alone, nor “the common nature of the subsistence,” but “the common nature viewed as a whole in the subsistence of the Word.”

It has been said, then, that the nature of the Word became flesh, that is, was united to flesh: but that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh we have never heard up till now, though we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh. So that “the nature of the Word” does not mean “the subsistence.” It remains, therefore, to say that to become flesh is to be united with the flesh, while the Word having become flesh means that the very subsistence of the Word became without change the subsistence of the flesh. It has also been said that God became man, and man God. For the Word which is God became without alteration man. But that the Godhead became man, or became flesh, or put on the nature of man, this we have never heard. This, indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead was united to humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been stated that God took on a different form or essence, to wit our own. For the name God is applicable to each of the subsistences, but we cannot use the term Godhead in reference to subsistence. For we are never told that the Godhead is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone. For “Godhead” implies “nature,” while “Father” implies subsistence, just as “Humanity” implies nature, and “Peter” subsistence. But “God” indicates the common element of the nature, and is applicable derivatively to each of the subsistences, just as “man” is. For He Who has divine nature is God, and he who has human nature is man.

Besides all this, notice that the Father and the Holy Spirit take no part at all in the incarnation of the Word except in connection with the miracles, and in respect of good will and purpose.”

St John of Damascus has also written specifically the difference between “miaphysite” doctrine and Orthodox doctrine in his Book III, Chapter III. Concerning Christ’s two natures, in apposition to those who hold that He has only one (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-30.htm):

For the two natures were united with each other without change or alteration, neither the divine nature departing from its native simplicity, nor yet the human being either changed into the nature of God or reduced to non-existence, nor one compound nature being produced out of the two. For the compound nature cannot be of the same essence as either of the natures out of which it is compounded, as made one thing out of others: for example, the body is composed of the four elements, but is not of the same essence as fire or air, or water or earth, nor does it keep these names. If, therefore, after the union, Christ’s nature was, as the heretics hold, a compound unity, He had changed from a simple into a compound nature, and is not of the same essence as the Father Whose nature is simple, nor as the mother, who is not a compound of divinity and humanity. Nor will He then be in divinity and humanity: nor will He be called either God or Man, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be the name not of the subsistence, but of what in their view is the one nature.

We, however, do not give it as our view that Christ’s nature is compound, nor yet that He is one thing made of other things and differing from them as man is made of sold and body, or as the body is made of the four elements, but hold that, though He is constituted of these different parts He is yet the same . For we confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and that He consists of two natures, and exists in two natures . Further, by the word “Christ” we understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely blasphemous.

How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?

But if those who declare that Christ has only one nature should say also that that nature is a simple one, they must admit either that He is God pure and simple, and thus reduce the incarnation to a mere pretence, or that He is only man, according to Nestorius. And how then about His being “perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity”? And when can Christ be said to be of two natures, if they hold that He is of one composite nature after the union? For it is surely clear to every one that before the union Christ’s nature was one.

But this is what leads the heretics astray, viz., that they look upon nature and subsistence as the same thing . For when we speak of the nature of men as one , observe that in saying this we are not looking to the question of soul and body. For when we compare together the soul and the body it cannot be said that they are of one nature. But since there are very many subsistences of men, and yet all have the same kind of nature: for all are composed of soul and body, and all have part in the nature of the soul, and possess the essence of the body, and the common form: we speak of the one nature of these very many and different subsistences; while each subsistence, to wit, has two natures, and fulfils itself in two natures, namely, soul and body.

But a common form cannot be admitted in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. For neither was there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ constituted of deity and humanity, and existing in deity and humanity at once perfect God and perfect man. And thus in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot speak of one nature made up of divinity and humanity, as we do in the case of the individual made up of soul and body. For in the latter case we have to do with an individual, but Christ is not an individual. For there is no predicable form of Christlihood, so to speak, that He possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture, or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches and Severus, and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate; holding that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that is, as true and not imaginary. We say that it is essential, moreover, not in the sense of two natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense of a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is preserved. For the created remaineth created, and the uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remaineth mortal; the immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible: the invisible, invisible. “The one part is all glorious with wonders: while the other is the victim of insults.”

Moreover, the Word appropriates to Himself the attributes of humanity: for all that pertains to His holy flesh is His: and He imparts to the flesh His own attributes by way of communication in virtue of the interpenetration of the parts one with another, and the oneness according to subsistence, and inasmuch as He Who lived and acted both as God and as man, taking to Himself either form and holding intercourse with the other form, was one and the same. Hence it is that the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified, although His divine nature never endured the Cross, and that the Son of Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion, as the Lord Himself said. For the Lord of Glory is one and the same with Him Who is in nature and in truth the Son of Man, that is, Who became man, and both His wonders and His sufferings are known to us, although His wonders were worked in His divine capacity, and His sufferings endured as man. For we know that, just as is His one subsistence, so is the essential difference of the nature preserved. For how could difference be preserved if the very things that differ from one another are not preserved? For difference is the difference between things that differ. In so far as Christ’s natures differ from one another, that is, in the matter of essence, we hold that Christ unites in Himself two extremes: in respect of His divinity He is connected with the Father and the Spirit, while in respect of His humanity He is connected with His mother and all mankind. And in so far as His natures are united, we hold that He differs from the Father and the Spirit on the one hand, and from the mother and the rest of mankind on the other. For the natures are united in His subsistence, having one compound subsistence, in which He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and also from the mother and us.

May god bless us, all.

PS:I hope that brother Mina has overcome the troubled situations.